Expect a nice election but ponder the number who fail to vote
Nov 4th 2010 | CAIRO
JORDAN seems to be the Canada of the Middle East. Well-run compared with the neighbours, it has safe and tidy streets, good schools and steady if plodding economic growth. Its police are tough and efficient but generally pretty nice.
Jordan even runs better elections than most. The one on November 9th, for the lower house of parliament, has 763 candidates competing for 120 seats, 24 of them reserved for women and minorities. The campaign has been peaceful and festive so far, with plenty of banners and posters and catchy sloganeering. Foreign observers are expected to give the vote a clean bill of health. Its likely outcome is a solid pro-government majority sprinkled with mild dissent.
The trouble is that few Jordanians seem to care much, for good reason. For the past 20 years their rulers, first King Hussein, now his son Abdullah, have promised meaningful democratic reform. Lots of lofty-sounding changes have been decreed, such as a new election law in May, which boosted the quota for women and allotted new seats to some under-represented districts. Yet the meaningful part has been largely absent.
Even with the new districting, for instance, a vote cast in the crowded capital, Amman, carries only a quarter of the weight of one cast in the dusty provincial town of Ma’an. This is because most people in Jordan’s bigger cities are of Palestinian descent, and therefore seen as less attached to the monarchy. By contrast, natives to the east side of the Jordan river, many of whom retain strong tribal ties, dominate in the hinterlands. Tribes still supply much of the manpower for Jordan’s security forces, and in tacit reward for such patronage have historically remained staunchly loyal to the ruling Hashemite family.
In any case, Jordan’s legislature does not have much influence. The king appoints the upper house, chooses the prime minister and cabinet, and can dissolve parliaments he dislikes. He has done this twice since ascending the throne in 1999, and during those legislative hiatuses ruled by decree. Loopholes and fuzzy laws let him muzzle the press and stifle dissent, much as happens in the meaner-looking countries next door.
This is why Jordan’s only real opposition, the Islamic Action Front, tied to the global Muslim Brotherhood, is boycotting this year’s polls. Its stand marks a break from the past, when the Islamists have traded loyalty to the Hashemites for a wider margin of manoeuvre. The growing stridency of the front, which supports Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement, and bridles at Jordan’s 16-year-old peace treaty with Israel, has heightened tension with the Hashemites. So the question in many Jordanian minds is not who will win seats in the election but how many people will vote at all. What will remain unclear is how many of those who abstain will have done so in sympathy for the Islamists and how many simply could not be bothered.
nicepore wrote: Nov 4th 2010 5:06 GMT
12 seats are reserved for women, not 24. one for each of the country's 12 governorates.
Johncanoe wrote: Nov 6th 2010 4:28 GMT
Yes, Jordan is a charming place. A few weeks ago Canada's acclaimed Royal Winnipeg Ballet performed in Israel. It was also tentatively booked in Jordan, but canceled all such dates when it was asked to exclude all 'Jewish sounding' names from advertisements.
Drew Ratcliffe wrote: Nov 6th 2010 8:28 GMT
"JORDAN seems to be the Canada of the Middle East. Well-run compared with the neighbours," Thanks, that's lovely. Don't worry Economist, we Americans are surprisingly tolerant of obliquely phrased insults.
Anonymouse wrote: Nov 7th 2010 7:01 GMT
did the writer actually visit Jordan...as a Jordanian the first paragraph cracked me up... when u compare us to the rest we are just as corrupt.. if u did the research ud realize were voting for the same candidates that couldnt do the job right in the first place..
riskability wrote: Nov 7th 2010 6:20 GMT
@GlobalSailor101
Look, Arab liberals or as they like to be called the Left had an ideal understanding of Democracy which end up (importing it) , on the other hand Islamists don't believe in Democracy and don't deny they are using it as a Tool , I think infusing the GAME with (12) women at this stage is a great success in the long road (of changing & traning the society) to true Democracy .. God bless Jordan
Jacob Blues wrote: Nov 8th 2010 6:52 GMT
It seems like this article was written and reviewed after the proverbial three-martini lunch.
"Jordan even runs better elections than most. The one on November 9th, for the lower house of parliament, has 763 candidates competing for 120 seats, 24 of them reserved for women and minorities. The campaign has been peaceful and festive so far, with plenty of banners and posters and catchy sloganeering. Foreign observers are expected to give the vote a clean bill of health. Its likely outcome is a solid pro-government majority sprinkled with mild dissent."
How amusing to see a divine right monarchy in the 21st Century labeled as a bastion of democracy. Any foreign observer who certifies such an election should be tarred and feathered and forced to find some real gainful employment, perhaps as a personal land-mine detector.
By what measure can Jordan be viewed as a democracy? The article advances the argument that elections are rigged, first through blatant racism, by counting Palestinian-Jordanian votes as worth 1/4 the vote of a non-Palestinian Jordanian. Then we see the gender manipulation, reserving seats for women.
But behind all of this is the real iron fist wrapped in a velvet glove. The Jordanian monarch, has and continues to disband parliments he dislikes, and sees fit to implement whatever laws he desires.
Can anyone imagine this happening in any western Democracy, let alone Canada?!?
And of course, we see how the opposition, the Muslim Brotherhood views its differences with the throne. They just want to rip up the peace treaty with Israel so that they can continue to wage Jihad against it.
I would love to know what possessed the writers and editors at the Economist to come up with its central statement. Truly, it is to laugh, if not, otherwise one would cry.
ejpoleii wrote: Nov 9th 2010 8:58 GMT
Over the years I have watched from afar as two Jordanian monarchs have struggled with conflicting issues. On the one hand, it seems that both have been motivated by a love of their country and their people and have desired to provide a peaceful environment for them. On the other hand they have been faced with internal enemies who wish to use them to create chaos and external enemies bent on their destruction. I don't believe that anyone really has a good answer and I think they are doing the best they can with what they have.
Jordan and the unfortunate Lebanon are the only states in the Middle East for which I have any compassion. I wish them well but my hopes are not high.
Nov 4th 2010 | CAIRO
JORDAN seems to be the Canada of the Middle East. Well-run compared with the neighbours, it has safe and tidy streets, good schools and steady if plodding economic growth. Its police are tough and efficient but generally pretty nice.
Jordan even runs better elections than most. The one on November 9th, for the lower house of parliament, has 763 candidates competing for 120 seats, 24 of them reserved for women and minorities. The campaign has been peaceful and festive so far, with plenty of banners and posters and catchy sloganeering. Foreign observers are expected to give the vote a clean bill of health. Its likely outcome is a solid pro-government majority sprinkled with mild dissent.
The trouble is that few Jordanians seem to care much, for good reason. For the past 20 years their rulers, first King Hussein, now his son Abdullah, have promised meaningful democratic reform. Lots of lofty-sounding changes have been decreed, such as a new election law in May, which boosted the quota for women and allotted new seats to some under-represented districts. Yet the meaningful part has been largely absent.
Even with the new districting, for instance, a vote cast in the crowded capital, Amman, carries only a quarter of the weight of one cast in the dusty provincial town of Ma’an. This is because most people in Jordan’s bigger cities are of Palestinian descent, and therefore seen as less attached to the monarchy. By contrast, natives to the east side of the Jordan river, many of whom retain strong tribal ties, dominate in the hinterlands. Tribes still supply much of the manpower for Jordan’s security forces, and in tacit reward for such patronage have historically remained staunchly loyal to the ruling Hashemite family.
In any case, Jordan’s legislature does not have much influence. The king appoints the upper house, chooses the prime minister and cabinet, and can dissolve parliaments he dislikes. He has done this twice since ascending the throne in 1999, and during those legislative hiatuses ruled by decree. Loopholes and fuzzy laws let him muzzle the press and stifle dissent, much as happens in the meaner-looking countries next door.
This is why Jordan’s only real opposition, the Islamic Action Front, tied to the global Muslim Brotherhood, is boycotting this year’s polls. Its stand marks a break from the past, when the Islamists have traded loyalty to the Hashemites for a wider margin of manoeuvre. The growing stridency of the front, which supports Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement, and bridles at Jordan’s 16-year-old peace treaty with Israel, has heightened tension with the Hashemites. So the question in many Jordanian minds is not who will win seats in the election but how many people will vote at all. What will remain unclear is how many of those who abstain will have done so in sympathy for the Islamists and how many simply could not be bothered.
nicepore wrote: Nov 4th 2010 5:06 GMT
12 seats are reserved for women, not 24. one for each of the country's 12 governorates.
Johncanoe wrote: Nov 6th 2010 4:28 GMT
Yes, Jordan is a charming place. A few weeks ago Canada's acclaimed Royal Winnipeg Ballet performed in Israel. It was also tentatively booked in Jordan, but canceled all such dates when it was asked to exclude all 'Jewish sounding' names from advertisements.
Drew Ratcliffe wrote: Nov 6th 2010 8:28 GMT
"JORDAN seems to be the Canada of the Middle East. Well-run compared with the neighbours," Thanks, that's lovely. Don't worry Economist, we Americans are surprisingly tolerant of obliquely phrased insults.
Anonymouse wrote: Nov 7th 2010 7:01 GMT
did the writer actually visit Jordan...as a Jordanian the first paragraph cracked me up... when u compare us to the rest we are just as corrupt.. if u did the research ud realize were voting for the same candidates that couldnt do the job right in the first place..
riskability wrote: Nov 7th 2010 6:20 GMT
@GlobalSailor101
Look, Arab liberals or as they like to be called the Left had an ideal understanding of Democracy which end up (importing it) , on the other hand Islamists don't believe in Democracy and don't deny they are using it as a Tool , I think infusing the GAME with (12) women at this stage is a great success in the long road (of changing & traning the society) to true Democracy .. God bless Jordan
Jacob Blues wrote: Nov 8th 2010 6:52 GMT
It seems like this article was written and reviewed after the proverbial three-martini lunch.
"Jordan even runs better elections than most. The one on November 9th, for the lower house of parliament, has 763 candidates competing for 120 seats, 24 of them reserved for women and minorities. The campaign has been peaceful and festive so far, with plenty of banners and posters and catchy sloganeering. Foreign observers are expected to give the vote a clean bill of health. Its likely outcome is a solid pro-government majority sprinkled with mild dissent."
How amusing to see a divine right monarchy in the 21st Century labeled as a bastion of democracy. Any foreign observer who certifies such an election should be tarred and feathered and forced to find some real gainful employment, perhaps as a personal land-mine detector.
By what measure can Jordan be viewed as a democracy? The article advances the argument that elections are rigged, first through blatant racism, by counting Palestinian-Jordanian votes as worth 1/4 the vote of a non-Palestinian Jordanian. Then we see the gender manipulation, reserving seats for women.
But behind all of this is the real iron fist wrapped in a velvet glove. The Jordanian monarch, has and continues to disband parliments he dislikes, and sees fit to implement whatever laws he desires.
Can anyone imagine this happening in any western Democracy, let alone Canada?!?
And of course, we see how the opposition, the Muslim Brotherhood views its differences with the throne. They just want to rip up the peace treaty with Israel so that they can continue to wage Jihad against it.
I would love to know what possessed the writers and editors at the Economist to come up with its central statement. Truly, it is to laugh, if not, otherwise one would cry.
ejpoleii wrote: Nov 9th 2010 8:58 GMT
Over the years I have watched from afar as two Jordanian monarchs have struggled with conflicting issues. On the one hand, it seems that both have been motivated by a love of their country and their people and have desired to provide a peaceful environment for them. On the other hand they have been faced with internal enemies who wish to use them to create chaos and external enemies bent on their destruction. I don't believe that anyone really has a good answer and I think they are doing the best they can with what they have.
Jordan and the unfortunate Lebanon are the only states in the Middle East for which I have any compassion. I wish them well but my hopes are not high.
Naiv and stupid
ردحذف