Jordan

Wany ga3ed 3al ja3ed

Sa7abo min Ta7ty il ja3ed

bas khawa thalaitny ga3ed

Slaiman 3wais

Amman is becoming more liberal. If you go out thursday night and cruise a bit you will see things that you have never seen in Amman. Yesterday I saw a couple making out in the back seat, and actually noticing that people could see them, but what the heck, love is in the air. And the other couple is sitting in the front seats driving, probably they had like turns, after 1 hour they would switch places, haha.

Viva Las Vigas

My good old buddy Rami Shawakfeh sent me an email almost a week ago, I thought it's worth blogging, enjoy & please give some feedback to this outstanding work.

What you are about to read below is a report I wrote with a fellow journalist on
democracy in Jordan, we conducted 200 interviews with random Jordanians in Amman
and many officials to see what they think of democracy in Jordan.

If you
are in Jordan, please support us by buying the next issue of Jordan Business
Monthly where you will find the article published (the issue should be out in a
week or so).

Wish you all the best!

Rami

Democratising
Jordan

By Rami Abdelrahman and Serene Al-Ahmad

As the momentum
of reform in the region continues to press forward, the path towards democracy
in Jordan is still not clear-cut. It is ironic that more than 2,000 years ago,
Amman, then known as Philadelphia, was one of the ten Greco-Roman Decapolis
cities, where Athenian direct democracy was practiced.

Amman witnessed
different forms of democracy through thousands of years and survived many
tyrannies and dictatorships.

Political reform, not just economic reform,
was declared a top priority for the government, back in 2003, in His Majesty
King Abdullah’s letter of designation to Prime Minister Faisal Al Fayez.


But can Jordan live up to its “role model” status in the region with its
piecemeal reforms? And more importantly, what does democracy mean to the average
Jordanian?

“Democracy is saying what you want to say, when you want to
say it without fearing those in leather jackets and dark shades,” said a
20-year-old female student.

An overwhelming majority of Jordanians, when
having to define democracy in their own words, say it is “freedom of
_expression”, rather than a form of government guaranteeing civil and political
rights and freedoms. This is what Jordan Business Monthly (JBM) concluded after
randomly surveying 200 people in Amman aged between 18 and 45.

The
United Nations Development Program’s (UNDP) Arab Human Development Report (AHDR)
2004 takes the concept of democracy further, stating that ensuring civil and
political rights and freedoms alone does not constitute a democratic system. A
democracy, the report states, ensures a broader freedom that “incorporates not
only civil and political freedoms, including freedom from oppression, but also
the liberation of the individual from all factors that are inconsistent with
human dignity, such as hunger, disease, ignorance, poverty, and fear.”


Despite their unclear understanding of democracy, 41% of Jordanians see
Jordan as “democratic to some extent” (see Chart 1), but the majority seem to
understand its value. According to our study, 38% of respondents think democracy
is “very important” to the Jordanian society, 46% think it is “important”, 9%
think it is “important to an extent”, 4% think it is “not important”, and 3%
think it is “not important at all”. When asked to evaluate the democratization
process in Jordan, 41% see it as “average” (see Chart 2), a finding which is
consistent with a public opinion poll about democracy conducted by the Center of
Strategic Studies (CSS) in 2004, which concluded that Jordanians think democracy
in the Kingdom is “in the middle of the road”.

The absence of freedom of
_expression and the absence of free press are the main obstacles to democracy in
Jordan, Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Human Rights Watch (HRW) for
the Middle East and North Africa, told JBM in a telephone interview. (JBM
approached Deputy Prime Minister for Parliamentary Affairs and Minister of
Political Development Hisham Tal for an interview, but he declined.) Freedom of
_expression, including freedom of press, is the most basic of rights guaranteed
by democracy.

“There are unseen barriers to democracy such as the role
of security forces in allowing freedom of _expression, the biased role of media,
and the shortage of true monitoring of the legislative, executive, and judiciary
authorities,” stated Mr. Taleb Saqqaf, assistant commissioner general of the
National Center for Human Rights (NCHR).

Poverty, fear, ignorance,
nepotism, tribalism, the governmental structure, and foreign interference, were
frequently mentioned as obstacles to democracy by JBM’s respondents. In fact,
only 16 people out of the 200 who filled JBM’s questionnaire did not fear
providing their names.

In 2004, the poll found, 81% of Jordanians
believed that they could not publicly criticize the government or disagree with
it without fearing governmental reprisal, a marginal decrease from 83% in 2003.
The percentage was 70% in 1999.  

The new government:

Will we
see a change?

Apart from its slow pace of reforms and diplomatic
mess-ups, the previous government left hard feelings growing in the parliament,
professional associations, political parties, media, and civil society
institutions.

On April 5, 2005, King Abdullah commissioned the president
of a private university, Dr. Adnan Badran, to form a new government, replacing
one that spent more time talking about political development than actually
working to achieve it.

“Aspirations exceed achievements,” the King said
in his letter of designation to Dr. Badran, whose government’s main task is to
institutionalize and accelerate reforms.

Fortunately, the aspirations of
the people are in accordance with the King’s directives to “open channels of
communication between all political powers, and focus on participation and
effective contribution of all segments of society to face its political,
economic, and social challenges.”

Allowing freedom of _expression,
improving living standards, and engaging Jordanian citizens in the decision
making process were cited by JBM’s respondents as the most important steps the
government should take in order to better achieve democracy.

Dr.
Badran’s government was quick to show its seriousness about political
development by saying it is intending to withdraw the Professional Associations’
Draft Law, which has caused much controversy and garnered international
reproach.

The law, which sought to silence the political voice of the
professional associations, was described by HRW as “a major setback to Jordan’s
earlier commitments to reform and to guaranteeing the rights of Jordanian
activists and civil society to assemble and express their views freely,”
according to a letter sent by the international watchdog to former Prime
Minister Faisal Al Fayez. (HRW received no response to the letter from the
government “so far”, as Ms. Whitson told JBM.)

A government that
presents such a law is “a government of political failure, not a government of
political development,” said deputy Abdel-Karim Dughmi during a hot
parliamentary debate over the law. The session ended with Parliament refusing to
endorse the law and refusing to give it urgency status, as suggested by the
government.

As this issue goes to press, the Professional Associations
Draft Law has been sidelined and no developments have taken place.

On
another front, Dr. Badran has been trying to smooth over discontent in the Lower
House by meeting deputies from the Islamic Action Front (IAF), the National
Democratic Block, and the Badia, in his bid for a vote of confidence. 43
deputies have threatened vetoing the new govnerment if it does not comply with
their seven conditions, which include a “better” geographic representation (more
ministers from the Southern Badia) and the dismissal of the ministers who
contributed to the tension between deputies and the previous government. At
press time, no vote of confidence has been granted to Dr. Badran’s government.
But ultimately, the government is expected to win its vote of confidence, as is
the case almost always.

But recently, the IAF, considered the main
opposition party, demanded that dialogue with political powers should precede
the formation of any new government, and not the other way around, according to
the party’s secretary general Hamza Mansour.

Article 35 of the Jordanian
constitution states, “The King appoints the Prime Minister and may dismiss him
or accept his resignation. He appoints the Ministers; he also dismissed them or
accepts their resignation, upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister.”


The government’s spokesperson and Minister of Culture Asma Khader said
the government in Jordan is “elected by the people, because the parliament has
the right to give it or deny it a vote of confidence.” Commenting on Ms.
Khader’s statement, Mr. Mansour said, “The parliament itself is not truly
representative of the people.”



I Vote Therefore I Care Not


The last parliamentary elections were held in June, 2003, under a 2001
temporary elections law that was passed by the previous parliament.

The
law reduced the eligible voting age from 19 to 18, gave every citizen the right
to vote for only one candidate in his/her electoral district, raised the number
of parliamentary seats from 80 to 110, and allocated a quota for women made up
of six parliamentary seats.

The 2003 election results saw a decisive
victory for tribal candidates and non-liberals who won 84 parliamentary seats.
Within this bracket, the IAF won 20 seats only, the poorest achievement in its
political history. Leftist and nationalist political parties failed to win any
seat in parliament, and none of the female candidates were able to win any seat
beyond their allotted quota (the 54 female candidates had to compete among
themselves for the 6-seat female quota). Out of the six women, one representing
the IAF was elected, while the other five were independents.

The number
of eligible voters for the last parliamentary elections was 2.3 million, but the
rate of participation in the elections was only 59%. The JBM study revealed that
more than half of respondents did not vote in the last parliamentary elections,
due to lack of qualified or trustworthy candidates. A more likely scenario could
be not knowing enough about what candidates actually stand for.

Out of
the total sample of JBM respondents, almost half (47%) see parliamentary
discussions as irrelevant to their interests, 38% said that they are relevant
“sometimes”, while the remaining 15% they are relevant (see Chart 3). A mere 26%
of those who voted in the last elections actually observe parliamentary
discussions, 37% of them do not, while the remaining 37% said they follow the
debates “sometimes”. Out of the 26% who voted and said they do follow
parliamentary discussions, 36% said parliament topics are relevant to their
interests, 21% said they are not, and 43% said they are relevant “sometimes”.


Lower House Speaker’s assistant, Deputy Mohammad Arsalan (Liberal
Democrat) attributed the growing loss of interest to two reasons: “First, it
could be said that the performance of the current parliament is not up to the
people’s aspirations. Second, the Lower House has been attacked unfairly in the
media by people who have personal interests in marginalizing its role.”


“There is a need to amend the laws of elections, political parties, and
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to allow them to expand their work to
include larger segments of the society and to protect the rights of citizens in
dealing with these institutions… currently there are many restrictions enforced
by law,” states Mr. Saqqaf.

He pointed out that raising awareness on
democratic values, human rights, and development through educational curricula
and allowing NGOs to cooperate in organizing campaigns is key to providing
training on democracy to all citizens.

Emad Hajjaj, social and political
caricature artist, stated, “Our parliament is not democratic. It makes a lot of
noise, but it is easy to contain. The biggest proof of that is what we saw in
their discussions with the government over the budget this year. They [deputies]
made a lot of noise, but eventually, they approved the budget.” 


Is
parliament democratic?

According to political analyst Dr. Fares Braizat
“the current electoral system infringes the principle of equality before the law
enshrined in the constitution”, although according to his poll, 56% of
Jordanians believe the law was fair in representing all sectors of the
population.

“In the 2003 General Elections, Amman had 887.478 registered
voters who had 23 seats in the Lower House of Parliament, while Al-Karak had 10
seats for 102.610 registered voters. This means a citizen’s vote in Al-Karak has
three times the weight of its counterpart in the capital. The implication of
this distribution is that the engineering of the electoral system has favored
the periphery over the center,” Dr. Braizat said. Amman represents a little less
than half of the total population yet holds only 23 out of the 110 LowerHouse
seats.

This extends to representation of women. Out of the 85 women
surveyed by JBM, a relatively high 58% participated in the election. (One woman
said that she did not vote because her husband wouldn’t allow it.) Women
represent 49% of the population, according to the Department of Statistics, but
have six seats in parliament. Yet 71% of citizens, when surveryed in 2004,
believed that the electoral system under which the current parliamentary
elections were held was fair to women.

Whether it is gender or
geographic representation, there seems to be imbalances in the parliament that
must be addressed.

Mr. Arsalan suggested that the best way of
representation can be achieved by applying a “one man, one vote, one
constituency” formula, i.e. giving each citizen the right to vote for only one
candidate, whereby only one candidate can win in each electoral district. The
current “one-man, one-vote” formula has been criticized by government opposition
as undermining the principle of equality and reinforcing voting based on tribal
and personal affiliations, rather than the candidate’s eligibility, and his/her
economic, political, and ideological stand.

“In light of the absence of
serious programs by political parties, which should seek true rotation of
authority, the majority of candidates win their parliament seats independently
by gathering tribal votes,” Mr. Arsalan commented.  
 

Voting the
clan way

According to JBM’s results, 53% of the respondents who voted in
the last parliamentary elections voted on an ideological basis, 25% voted on a
tribal/family basis, 12% on a religious basis, and 10% for other reasons (see
Chart 4). Many of those who vote on a tribal basis paradoxically state that
their reason for participating in the election is their duty and loyalty to
Jordan.

“Those parliamentarians [who win on a tribal basis] focus on
servicing their personal relationships and therefore disregard their
legislative, monitoring, and political role,” added Mr. Arsalan, noting that
this weakens the House in fulfilling its duties in general.

According to
the AHDR 2004, “Tribalism in Arab countries provides a threat to freedoms, as
tradition and tribalism, sometimes under the cover of religion, contribute to
curtailing freedoms and fundamental rights and have weakened the good citizen’s
strength and ability to advance.”

The report also suggests that, “Tribal
allegiances develop when the judiciary is ineffective or the executive authority
is reluctant to implement its rulings, circumstances that make citizens unsure
of their ability to realize their rights without the allegiances of the clan.” 



Are political parties an alternative?

“Though there are over
20 political parties in Jordan of different political persuasions, they lack a
solid base of support and a viable platform, with the notable exception of the
IAF,” King Abdullah was quoted as saying on his website.

Mr. Saqqaf of
the NCHR said political parties and NGOs alike face financial obstacles that
prevent them from fulfilling their roles. “The law enforces restrictions on NGOs
and political parties finances, as it doesn’t allow space for much donations,
which keeps the NGOs’ and political parties’ scope of work limited,” he said,
adding that the government itself is not supporting these institutions
financially, and if it did, it would force control over their scope of work.


Current political parties do not present a good alternative for the
political, social, and economic aspirations of Jordanians. JBM found that people
have little affinity to political parties. One of the respondents to the JBM
questionnaire went as far as saying that political parties should “not exist” in
order to enhance democracy in Jordan, another said that political parties are
the main obstacle to democracy! Many, it seems, know little of what political
parties represent, or how essential they are to democracy. 32% of JBM
respondents did not know how to answer the question: “How could political
parties contribute to political development in Jordan?”

Those who did
answer the question saw that the best way for political parties to take a more
active role in political development is by merging. If they did not, some
respondents said, nobody would be interested in joining them.

According
to the IAF, the fear of government retribution is the reason people are losing
interest in political parties, adding that political parties do still think
about boycotting elections if freedoms were not guaranteed, but choose not to,
because they do not want the situation to become any worse.

The AHDR
2004 suggests that, “There is an acute sectarian split in the political
community between the Islamic parties on the one hand and the liberal and
nationalist secular parties on the other (as well as other sectarian divisions
along doctrinal, ethnic, tribal, and regional lines). As a result of this
sectarian fragmentation, some parties and political forces have preferred to
co-operate with undemocratic governments rather than work with their rivals to
lay the groundwork for a democratic rule open to all.” 

Can the media do
more?

“There are integral pillars to building a democracy: a free and
elected parliament, an independent judiciary, contemporary legislation, a free
and independent press, and an active civil society. We cannot speak about a
democratic society without the existence of free press and free _expression,
which are both inseparable and interrelated,” stated Nidal Mansour, founder of
the Center for Defending Freedom of Journalists (CDFJ) and Editor-in-Chief of Al
Hadath weekly newspaper.

Although press freedom varies from one Arab
country to the other, the AHDR 2003 states that most Arab countries “place the
media under the dominant political authorities and institutions, and employ
media channels for political propaganda and entertainment, at the expense of
other functions and services.”

In Jordan, the most-read Arabic daily
newspaper and the only English daily have about a 55% government stake. The
government also had shares in the country’s second most-read newspaper, until
the establishment of a private newspaper that became Jordan’s number two paper.


There are six daily newspapers in Jordan, which amounts to 0.001
newspapers per 1,000 citizens (almost one newspaper per 916,000 Jordanians).
This is a remarkably low figure when contrasted with 285 papers per 1,000 people
in developed nations, according to the AHDR 2003.

The small number of
Jordanian dailies is also indicative of the lack of diversity in their political
views. Most daily newspapers generally tend to speak on behalf of, or in
agreement with the government on most, if not all, issues. The media hardly
satisfies the role of a watchdog, let alone that of a fourth authority.


“The media needs to go down to the street and mingle with the people and
not the officials,” a 28-year-old telecom engineer said, summing up the general
expectations of JBM’s respondents of local media. Some respondents complained of
hearing news about Jordan, which are never mentioned in local press, from
non-Jordanian media.

“News of interest to the majority of the population
and which relates to their daily concerns or which could enrich their scientific
and cultural knowledge is scarce. News about certain aspects of Arab politics,
society, and religion is often simply not disclosed,” the AHDR 2003 maintains.


The NCHR said that both press organizations and journalists are also to
blame when it comes to the ineffectiveness of spreading democracy.

“The
space used in any newspaper focusing on supporting marginalized sectors of the
society and pushing for more human rights and democracy is very little vis-à-vis
the space used for public and private institutions’ public relations,” said Mr.
Saqqaf.

In order to better achieve democracy, JBM respondents demanded
that the media tell the whole story and the two sides of the story. One of them
went as far as saying that we should learn from the Lebanese media.


Known for pushing the envelope and being the voice of the people, Mr.
Hajjaj commented, “Jordanian media has to fight for its rights, which are
obvious and guaranteed by international laws. The most basic of those is freedom
of opinion and self _expression. The Press and Publication Law is rife with
general expressions that keep journalists apprehensive.”

In 1993,
Jordan’s Parliament enacted the Press and Publication Law. Instead of providing
liberal protections to journalists, this law contained a number of restrictive
provisions, including a limited definition of “journalist” and a list of 14
restrictions on the press. Also, out of the 211 temporary laws passed between
2001 and 2003, a controversial amendment to the penal code was made. “It [the
amendment] stipulated harsh penalties for journalists and editors publishing
news that undermines national unity, spreads hatred, harms the reputation of the
state, officials, and citizens, and jeopardizes stability by spreading rumors or
false information,” according to Oxford Business Group. These offences are often
used as pretexts for censorship, and are vague and open to arbitrary
interpretation.

However, in a welcomed development, King Abdullah
recently met with the editors-in-chief of Jordanian dailies and said he directed
the government to support the freedom of the press, guarantee reporters’ access
to information, and enact a legislation to prohibit jailing journalists on
charges related to their jobs.

Both the government and the media got the
rating of “average” with regards to their role in political development. Scoring
five more points in its performance average, the government came first and media
second for their roles in political development. (See Charts A, B, C, D, E)


The main obstacles to Jordanian media, according to Mr. Mansour are: the
absence of a clear political will to support freedom of press, the lack of a
strategic vision for freedom of press, and the lack of independence and
professionalism.

“If there was no clear commitment, then all talk of
free press is a mere attempt at beautifying the image of Jordan. We want
directives to be translated into practice,” stated Mr. Mansour, who was expelled
from his position as secretary general of the Jordan Press Association for
establishing the CDFJ. “Until now, all we see are steps that show that we do not
have a strategic vision; there is a constant change in legislations. We have
scrapped the Ministry of Information and established six other institutions
instead,” he added.

Commenting on why he seems to have more freedom of
_expression than others, Mr. Hajjaj said, “I draw caricatures; I have a unique
way of expressing myself. I argue for my level of freedom, before I argue for my
salary. But it happened gradually. It is a grave mistake for us to allow others
to set limits on the freedom of our _expression and creativity. This is a war
and we have to fight it.”

There is no doubt that the media has a crucial
role to play in enhancing democracy, however other factors are at play.  


Can Islam and democracy c-oexist?

Islam is arguably one of the
main victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Terrorists and Islamists became
interchangeable words in the international media; they both were viewed as
enemies of U.S. President George Bush’s drive of spreading democracy around the
world, particularly in the Middle East.

“Our war is not against Islam,
or against faith practiced by the Muslim people. Our war is a war against evil,”
said Mr. Bush in one of many attempts to clarify the difference between Islam
and terrorism.

So is Islam compatible with democracy? 69% of JBM’s
respondents, most of whom are Muslims, said yes, 12% said “to some extent”, 15%
said no, while the remaining 4% said they didn’t know. (see Chart 5)


When asked whether they think religion and state should be separated in
order to better achieve democracy, 77% said no, reasoning that Islam encompasses
democracy and not the other way around. Out of the 69% who said that Islam and
democracy are compatible, only 18% said religion and state should still be
separated.

In the Sharia (Islamic Law), Shura is believed to be an
equivalent to democracy, as it is a process of consultation, demanding that a
ruler engages followers in decision-making. The word Shura also refers to an
assembly that meets to solve the problems of a group of individuals, starting
from a family and continuing to the political affairs of a country.


Islamic historians argue that over history, the Muslim empire, which
extended from India to Spain, was able to absorb people of a wide-spectrum of
religious, ideological, and political orientations under the rule of Shura.


“The fundamental principles in Islam, which dictate good governance,
include the realization of justice and equality, the assurance of public
freedoms, the right of the nation to appoint and dismiss rulers, and guarantees
of all public and private rights for non-Muslims and Muslims alike,” states the
AHDR 2004.

Democracy and faith in the political process

“I do
not want to vote, because what the government wants is what is going to happen,”
said a 23-year-old student. This student said that Jordan is “not democratic at
all” and that the democratization process of Jordan has been “very bad”. Asked
what the government could do to better achieve democracy he suggested,
“Dismantling the parliament because it is useless. We need a parliament that is
truly elected by the people and not the government, which, of course, is
impossible.” Although too extreme, this student echoes, to an extent, a general
sentiment of political apathy in the Jordanian street. The lack of interest in
politics could very well be a product of a lack of awareness. This is where
political reform can play a critical role in educating people about the value of
democracy and the importance of political participation.

As it stands, a
recent study conducted by Ipsos-Stat and Al-Ghad newspaper found that political
reform was the last of priorities for Jordanians, with a mere 8% rating it as
their number one priority. Economic reform topped their priorities with 63%,
followed by social reform with 29%. Yet “economic corruption is the natural
result of political corruption,” maintains the AHDR 2004.

The same study
also found that the degree to which Jordanians are “convinced that the new
government is capable of reform and positive change” drops when income and
educational levels rise.

“The failure of consecutive governments in
creating an atmosphere of freedom and political participation made Jordanians
lose faith in the possibility of engaging in political life,” states Mr.
Mansour.

Local political analysts recently referred to a “confidence
crisis”, after a new CSS poll published on April 19 found that public trust in
the ability of the government to shoulder its responsibilities and succeed in
accomplishing the tasks at hand is declining.

Jordanians have seen five
governments (Rawabdeh, Abu Al Ragheb, Abu Al Ragheb, Fayez, and Badran) since
King Abdullah’s accession to the throne on February 7, 1999. Each prime minister
promised to take reform one level up, but none were able to shake up the mood on
the street. “He is just like any other prime minister,” was a typical answer JBM
respondents gave when asked whether they are optimistic about the new premier’s
government.

People’s expectations of Dr. Badran’s government turned out
below their expectations of the last six governments, the new poll found. In
1996, 82% of respondents said they believed Kabariti would be successful in
shouldering his responsibility, while now, 62% believe that Dr. Badran would be
successful.

“People are gradually losing confidence in successive
government because they cannot see that these governments are delivering,
especially on major economic issue,” said Dr. Braizat.

However, the poll
indicated that 54% of respondents believe that the government could surge ahead
with political development, and 57% believe it could strengthen free
_expression.

It is this kind of positive thinking that the government
should capitalize on. As it stands today, the street is alienated yet aching for
change and that is why the government should act fast. Allowing greater freedom
of _expression and press, the most basic rights and freedoms guaranteed by
democracy, would not only seriously advance the democratization process in
Jordan, but also enhance the government’s performance by bettering the
monitoring process, and more importantly, actively engaging Jordanians in
shaping their future.

Talk of democratic reform is abound in the Middle
East, and Jordan is no exception. The country is indeed viewed as the region’s
pioneer in reform. And if that is to remain the case, Jordan should too walk the
walk.