Jordan: A Working Model?
December 8th, 2009 by Zack
The Middle East Online reports that Jordan plans to postpone its parliamentary election in order to amend its election laws and organize its first poll for regional councils, which have traditionally been appointed by the government. However, Reuters is reporting that Jordan’s King Abdullah II will likely shy away from genuine political reform now that his decision to dissolve the parliament has received little public and international outcry. Many advocates for reform expect no drastic changes and Taher Kanaan, a former deputy prime minister, argues, “in recent years, changes of Parliament or Cabinet are just part of the entertainment business in Jordan.”
The article goes on to explain that Jordan’s electoral system was instituted in 1993 with a distinctive slant towards “rural, pro-monarchy tribal constituencies and away from mostly Palestinian-populated cities where Islamist sentiment is strong.” The fear of Islamists has continued through the 2007 elections and now the regime is using the Middle East peace process as a crutch to prevent reform. Nawaf Tell, a Foreign Ministry official who heads Jordan University’s Center for Strategic Studies, states “institutional political reform cannot be launched in a sustainable, consistent track unless there is real progress on the ground on the Palestinian issue […] Now public opinion appreciates security and does not take it for granted anymore”
In light of these decisions, Joshua Landis carries a statement from Rami Khouri claiming, “Jordan is a model that works, whether we like it or not.” Landis then agrees with Khouri and moderate Islamist Laith Shubeilat, who argue that Jordan is a police state in which no real opposition is permitted and there are few “real proponents” of democracy in the Middle East.
Posted in Democracy Promotion, Elections, Freedom, Jordan, Legislation, Political Islam, Political Parties |
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Leave a Reply
December 9th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Joshua Landis’ comments that are critical of Jordan ought to be seen in light of the fact that he has a close relationship with the Embassy of Syria. Jordan is often touted as a relatively moderate and open society in the Arab world. Of course, Landis would be expected to downplay the extent to which this is true because then Syria becomes less of an outlier. If Jordan, Syria’s neighbor is not as open and moderate as often thought, then Syria is just like most of its Arab neighbors. If we take away Jordan then the only Arab societies outside of the Maghreb that are open are violent ones (i.e. Lebanon and Iraq). This helps to justify the harsh repression, even relative to the norm in the Middle East, of the Syrian regime because it brings credence to the argument that in this region such repression is necessary to prevent violence. Landis is providing the meat behind such an argument by working to diminish the credibility of an alternative to Syrian style repression.
Historically Jordan has been on the opposing side of a regional rivalry. The more radical (in terms of its support for terrorism and rejection of Israel) Syria and has typically been been aligned against Jordan and its Western allies. This of course is yet another reason why Landis, the stalwart defender of the regime, would seek to undermine Jordan’s system.
Ultimately, the point is that Joshua Landis’ analysis is not that of a scholar looking at the situation from outside. Rather, he has aligned himself with the Baathist regime in Damascus. Therefore, his writings and speeches should be understood as a press release from the Syrian embassy in Washington would be understood: a useful look into how the regime is thinking, but only what the regime wants us to hear. Reading Landis is like reading Pravda.
Here we have Landis parroting the regime’s talking points: http://www.theworld.org/2009/07/24/change-for-syria/
A fairly good look at his defense of the regime:
http://spectator.org/archives/2006/01/04/assads-academic/print