Jordan and its king

As beleaguered as ever
King Abdullah must make swift and drastic reforms to resolve his latest political and economic
crisis
Oct 13th 2012 | AMMAN | from the print edition The Economist
TIME is running out for a deal between King Abdullah and Jordans political parties, as elections
early next year loom. The kingdoms political forces are threatening a boycott in protest against a
system that lets political parties contest fewer than a fifth of the seats, whereas the rest go to
individuals, whom the regime has long reckoned to be more malleable than people on party lists.
No hint of compromise is in the air, though a new prime minister, Abdullah Ensour, is said to be
relatively reform-minded and keen to stop the security types from fiddling the results.
On October 4th the king dissolved parliament, signalling his intent to press on with the election
despite the boycott. The next day the Muslim Brotherhood (badged in Jordan as the Islamic
Action Front), by far the best-organised and beefiest of the opposition parties, replied with the
largest and most menacing mass protest in Jordan since the Arab awakening elsewhere nearly
two years ago. Some 15,000 people, mostly Islamists, filled the square near Ammans alHusseini mosque. Remember Qaddafi, warned a hothead from Irbid, a northern town, to cheers
from the crowds. Next stop, Tahrir Square, cried a cocky Muslim Brother.
More fluent in his native English than in Arabic, the king took his campaign to Americas air
waves. Jordans Brotherhood, he said, represented only 12% of Jordanians yet was seeking to
hijack politics by means of street demagoguery. They are not running because they are not
going to do well, the king limply told Jon Stewart, an American talk-show host.
But a collision would suit neither the king nor the Brotherhood. Abdullah needs support from the
Islamists if he is to push through the swingeing austerity measures the IMF is demanding as
proof for Jordans Western creditors that he remains a reformer. The IMF has offered to drip-feed
$2 billion into the ailing economy, but in return wants the king to cut subsidies on fuel and
electricity and prune his bloated public sector. But mindful of growing discontent he has twice in
the past four months funked taking such measures.
From the Brotherhoods point of view, its more openly confrontational attitude risks eroding its
fragile alliance with Jordans other political groups, such as the National Reform Front, led by
Ahmad Obeidat, a former head of intelligence who has gone into opposition. His party says it
will also boycott the election, but it stayed away from the Brotherhoods rally. So too did
Jordans mostly non-Islamist Bedouin tribesmen who were once the kings sturdiest allies but
who now, feeling sidelined, are openly voicing dissent.
Edgily noting precedents in Egypt and in the Palestinian territories, many Jordanians fear the
Brotherhood wants to monopolise power. They dont share their programme, complains a
Jordanian stockbroker of Palestinian background, who initially took part in the marches but now
keeps his distance. Were not just buttons they can press whenever they want.
The Brotherhood remains Jordans most disciplined as well as biggest political force. Seeking to
hobble the protests, the authorities cancelled buses the Brotherhood had hired to ferry their
people to the capital, stopped traffic miles from the rally, and broadcast that the police would let
counter-demonstrators, official lingo for beltajiya (government thugs), stage a rival protest. Yet
the event passed off peacefully.
Jordans Brotherhood may grow still more confident if its counterpart emerges strongly in nextdoor Syria and as Jordans middle class sees its prosperity shrink amid soaring prices.

Membership of the oil-rich Gulf Co-operation Council, which Jordan was invited last year to
join, in the hope that it would bring a panacea of wealth, has yet to materialise.
The king is running out of ideas as well as cash. His favourite shock-absorbing tacticto blame
his governments and sack his prime ministershardly washes. We can no longer remember
their names, groans a diplomat, after the king dropped his fifth prime minister since the Arab
awakening began last year. Abdullah vaunts amendments to a third of the constitution, yet,
though he has appointed an independent election commission and a constitutional court, many of
the measures are cosmetic. The king has kept his crucial power to dissolve parliament and rule
by decree. A recent law lets censors curb internet news sites. His security forces finances are still
not openly audited, so corruption within them is rife; an intelligence chief was recently
embroiled. The Arab spring was a wake-up call, bemoans Yusuf Mansour, an economist and
one-time royal speechwriter. But Jordan never woke up.

Our article on Jordan

The Jordanian embassy in London responds
Oct 26th 2012, 14:40
The Economist received the following letter from the Jordanian embassy in London in response
to a recent article:
With reference to the article about Jordan and its King, As beleaguered as ever, published in
the October 13th edition of The Economist, no Jordanian would disagree with the contention
that a collision between the political forces in Jordan is of benefit to anyone. The Islamic Action
Front, to which this article refers, has been an integral part of our political life since the mid
Forties. The Muslim Brotherhood found Jordan as the only safe haven to practice politics in
freedom and dignity. Members held senior government positions, made up 33% of the parliament
at one point in the mid eighties and held its Speaker's position. Above the entrance of the Muslim
Brotherhood headquarters, unseen by your reporter observing the rally in downtown Amman, is
the date of its founding chiseled in stone. As Jordan sets its course for the future, safeguarding
its special tapestry, this heritage of tolerance and inclusiveness is an objective by itself during
this time of change in a challenging neighbourhood.
I am, however, compelled to draw your attention to a number of inaccuracies in the article.
The elections law referred to in the first paragraph was enacted by the parliament. Members of
the Islamic Action Front were not members in this parliament because they boycotted the 2010
elections. Based on simple mathematics, no single party or block in the parliament has yet the
majority to pass the law it desires. So even if a boycotting party was in parliament, the
assumption that they would have the majority to push a law through is baseless. The law which
invited the mass protest is by no means the ideal elections law. But it's the most consensual we
have managed to arrive at and any future changes to this law can be introduced in parliament
not on the streets. His Majesty is on record on this, but 2.25 million Jordanians have already
registered for the elections, almost 70% of the electorate.
I would like to elaborate more on the elections law in conjunction with what the article states as
"a system that lets political parties contest less than a fifth of the seats, whereas the rest go to
individuals." In fact, the national ticket guarantees political parties 27 seats. Nothing in the
current system, however, prevents parties to field candidates in individual districts, as they have
always done. This is the first time in Jordan's history that a national list is introduced to
complement the voting system. This is meant to encourage participation and representation of
political parties.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the political party culture is yet to take root in Jordan. A
recent International Republican Institute poll indicated only 1% of the Jordanian population are
members of any political party, and approximately 90% stated that they have no plans to join
one in the near future. The introduction of the national list seats in the election law is part of the
effort to pragmatically develop and expand partisan political life in Jordan through the
development of a political right, left and centre.
The article contends that the mass protest took place as a direct result of His Majestys decision
for the dissolution of the parliament. The organizers called for this rally three weeks before the
dissolution of the parliament and invited 50,000 to participate. The timeframe for the dissolution
was planned and announced over a year ago when His Majesty announced the elections will be
held towards the end of 2012. How can elections take place with Parliament still sitting!
In the same paragraph the article refers to 15,000 demonstrators. This count is copied from
some newswires on the day of the rally. Credible wires later corrected the number to 8,000
participants. A simple head count can be carried out from photos taken by reporters from
rooftops. A similar number can be reached by calculating the geometric area of the rally.
Referring to 15,000 when they physically could not have been, the article might as well referred
to 100,000 or 200,000 or even more, which ever would satisfy the argument being created. It
would have been more contextual to say that Jordan witnessed over 7,000 rallies, sit-ins and
protests over the past two years, and if anything this is indicative of the inherent freedom of
speech and expression all Jordanians are guaranteed under the Constitution. It is natural and
welcome that during a time of change, and anytime as a student of our history will ascertain,
that parties and groups gather to voice their aspirations. We maintain that what is important is
the inclusion of everyone in the elections, regardless of the numbers of the people in the rally. We
need to preserve the harmony as you rightly describe in the article.
The article also refers to tribesmen openly voicing dissent. Here the article casts general
judgment on a large segment of the population. You may wish to inquire how many tribesmen
were interviewed to reach this gross and inaccurate generalization. Incidentally, the article later
refers to them as beltajieh. Although the term thug is copy-pasted from the Egyptian uprising,
it bears zero relevance to the Jordanian reality where such people simply do not exist. In fact the
authorities denied permission for a protest by an opposing force to take place in the same
location on the same day in order to avoid a clash between the two protests and took every
measure to provide full security for the opposition protest.
In the seventh paragraph the writer is confident that the government stopped participants
reaching the mass protest. Did he see the road blocks? Or is it just hearsay? Or perhaps the
other side of the coin is the antonym of what was described as a limply comment. Incidentally,
not even the organizers of the mass protest complained about this, and there isnt even a picture
of someone being stopped going through. In fact, the organizers of the protest were the first to
thank the security forces for their role in facilitating this protest, a fact confirmed by
international and local reporters in the independent coverage of the days events.
The article also refers to cosmetic reform measures and gives the example that the King can still
dissolve the parliament and rules by decree. The article fails to state that according to the new
Constitution, should the King dissolve the parliament the prime minister must resign and cannot
be reappointed. The article also fails to mention that Royal decrees are signed by the prime
minister and the relevant minister before they go into force. It also fails to note that governments
are appointed by the King, but without a vote of confidence in parliament their appointment is
annulled. You will agree that with the Independent Elections Commission and the Constitutional
Court these developments are everything but cosmetic. Transition to parliamentary government
is the declared end-goal of the current phase of Jordans political reform, a significant omission
in the article.
The new media law referred to in the last paragraph does not curb freedoms of the press. This
law specifies the news websites only. It was enacted by the parliament to protect the personal
freedoms of Jordanians. Similar to this country, with the new law, media are now liable should

someone be wrongly slandered or accused. Before this law they were allowed to say whatever
they wanted about anyone, with or without proof. Its very basic. The law is about regulation not
press freedoms. The description the article give of this law is basically not correct.
Jordan has embarked on an ambitious comprehensive reform programme. There is no going
back, as the King as the guarantor of this process has said. We have amended one third of our
Constitution, effectively re-writing it. We have enacted laws as a result, and created an
Independent Elections Commission that will oversee and conduct the elections. And
parliamentary elections will be taking place in the time-frame announced lat year. It would have
been helpful if the report took these factors into consideration in order to present a more
balanced picture rather than a largely inaccurate account.
The article simply does not objectively translate the reality on the ground, the concrete and true
developments that are taking place in Jordan. There are a number of other major points which I
have not stated in this letter, which I am confident you will not find acceptable. I understand that
you may have certain standards for your sources as an article is being formulated, but you may
find it helpful to at least authenticate the facts.
Mazen Homoud, Jordanian ambassador, London
Our response to the ambassador's letter:
With respect, the inaccuracies to which the ambassador refers are differences of opinion,
interpretation and emphasis.
He agrees that a political collision in Jordan is of no benefit to anyone. We argue that, to this
end, a political settlement should be considered that would ensure the participation of the
Muslim Brotherhood in the coming elections. As he notes, the Brotherhood has been an integral
part of political life in Jordan and took part extensively in government and parliament under
King Hussein. Given the prevailing political climate across the region, we advanced the notion
that inclusion remains an important ingredient for stability in the kingdom.
On our assessment of the elections law, we stated that the kingdoms political parties were
disappointed that they were assigned less than a fifth of parliamentary seats. The law does indeed
assign 27 of the 150 seats in parliament to political parties, which by our calculations is less than
a fifth. It also seems odd to describe a law as consensual, when, as acknowledged, it invited
mass protest. Moreover, our assessment is in line with that of legal experts, political
commentators, senior diplomats and high-ranking politicians.
By way of example, Abdullah Ensour, the new prime minister, who was an influential
parliamentarian when the law was passed, denounced the law as a severe setback to hopes for an
independent parliament. His comments were reported in the Jordan Times, which does not
generally promote anti-government dissent, under the headline Elections Law amendments
death blow to Jordans reform drive.
Mr Ensours comments are worth recording at length:
We will probably end up with no more than 15 or 10 MPs from political parties. How can we call
this a step towards an independent parliament? [Mr Ensour] described the election of 123 of
the 150 seats by one vote at the district level as a carbon copy of the one-person, one-vote
formula that has produced successive tribal- and independent-dominated parliaments that have
failed in their monitoring and legislative roles and eroded the publics faith in the political
process. With most of the seats to be determined on the same system, we are going to essentially
get the same parliament. It seems that the authorities believe the Jordanian spring is over and
that we can return to the way things were before January 2011. I hope for the countrys sake they
learn that they are wrong before it is too late.
As for the assertion that political party membership in Jordan stands at about 1%, it is worth
recalling that this is on par with Britain, where political parties participate fully in the electoral

system. Official Jordanian figures show that 63% of Jordanians are registered to vote and that
less than half that percentage did so in the capital, Amman. Local NGOs monitoring the
registration process and foreign diplomats have also reported instances of malpractice in the
registration of votes, including the collection of voter IDs en masse by family members without
the individuals consent. See this article in the Jordan Times.
The ambassador questions our assertion that the mass protest was a response to the kings
dissolution of parliament the previous day. While it is true that the protest was planned ahead of
the dissolution, it is equally true that the date for the dissolution of parliament had been widely
anticipated as a key step to holding elections before the end of the year. As we noted, the Muslim
Brotherhood had repeatedly emphasised its opposition to elections under the elections law, and
understood the dissolution as a mark of the kings determination to press ahead with elections
without further reform.
The ambassador also casts doubt on our figure of 15,000 for the turnout at the protest.
Admittedly, it is always difficult to be precise about crowd size. That figure, however, was
widely reported in the international media, including Reuters and other generally reliable
agencies. Estimates at the time varied from 7,000 to 40,000. Western diplomats reported more
than 10,000. The Economist has not seen the photographs mentioned purportedly showing a
smaller number of participants.
With respect, our description of some of the counter-demonstrators as beltajieh did not suggest
that they are tribesmen. Our assessment that East Bankers are voicing open dissent is drawn
from scores of interviews during field visits to southern, central and northern Jordan in the past
two years. Reports of a counter-demonstration had been widely circulated in the official media
prior to the rally. An official newspaper also quoted security sources as saying that the security
forces will not be present at the demonstration out of fear that security forces could side with
one party against another. See this article.
Regarding whether road-blocks were erected around downtown Amman ahead of the protest.
These were widely reported by eye-witnesses, local websites and the international press. For
instance, the DPA reported that that the authorities blocked off traffic across the capital and
barricaded several side streets to prevent any confrontations. See this article also.
Amnon News, a local website, reported that police set up check points at all entrances to the
downtown area. It also reported that police stopped suspicious-looking individuals and
carried a photograph of a roadblock alongside its report. Another photograph is available here.
Regarding doubts about our coverage of the constitutional amendments. Our assessment of these
is shared by a broad swathe of legal experts, political commentators, parliamentarians and
diplomats interviewed by the correspondent. While it true that a third of the articles of the
constitution have been changed, quantity does not always equate to quality. In many if not most
of the articles which are said to have changed, the wording is similar. For a side-by-side
comparison, see this piece.
Tellingly, in almost all cases, the specific clauses relating to the king in the previous constitution
remain unchanged.
As for the powers to rule without parliament, Article 94 of the constitution gives the council of
ministers powers to issue provisional laws, to be ratified by the king, in the event that the
national assembly is not sitting or has been dissolved and the king has declared a state of
emergency, which some have suggested the war in Syria now warrants. It specifically states
(twice) that the provisional laws shall have the force of law.
While parliamentary government may be the final goal of the political reforms, it is not yet
explicitly enshrined in this constitution. Significantly, unlike Moroccos, the amended
constitution does not require the king to nominate the prime minister from the party that received
the most votes. And again unlike Moroccos, Jordans constitution was not put to a popular
referendum but rather passed by a parliament which officials openly admit is the product of

rigged elections. Parliamentarians, including the current prime minister, have criticised the haste
with which the constitution was passed through parliament. See this article.
Ultimately, without a strong and representative parliament which major reforms to the electoral
law might have enabled, a former justice minister and law professor at Jordan university
anticipates that in practice there will be few formal checks and balances on the powers of the
king.
Indeed, a survey of other media outlets reporting from the scene of the demonstrations gives a
more strident account of Jordans constitutional predicament than The Economist does. You
have the king who has been basically been shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic trying to stave
off any substantial changes in the kingdom, reported on CNN on October 5th, 2012.
Regarding our take on the new media law, Jordans penal code already protects individuals and
government institutions from defamation. Under the existing law, libel of a government official
can incur a sentence of three years imprisonment. Earlier this year, the editor of a website was
detained under existing powers by a military prosecutor under the aegis of the State Security
Court.
The new law covers electronic publications that publish news, investigations, articles, or
comments, which have to do with the internal or external affairs of the kingdom", and gives the
authorities the power to censor, block or close websites without a court order. This law has been
widely criticised domestically, by Jordanian journalists (see Daoud Kuttab, Jordans bid to
muzzle information, The Washington Post, 6 October 2012) , and internationally, among others
by Human Rights Watch and the Committee for the Protection of Journalists.
In the ambassadors closing paragraphs he says that the article did not take into consideration
that Jordan has amended one third of the constitution, enacted laws, and created an independent
elections commission. As a result, he describes the article as imbalanced and a largely
inaccurate account. In fact we mention all three things, as well as the constitutional court.
We stand by our articles accuracy and its judgments.