Will the Elections Law Solve the Problem?

       Jordan held its parliamentary elections on January 23^rd amidst much criticism and skepticism from political opponents. The modified 2012 Elections Law, which maintained the Single Non Transferable Vote (also known as the one man one vote system), but introduced new national-level lists, is still rejected by political opponents.

     Long is the list criticizing the Elections Law, where political activists are demanding just representation of political parties. This notion of political injustice is fed by the 30 year old ban on political parties (from 1957 to 1989). Rightfully do opposition parties, whether Islamists, communists, socialists and pan-Arabists, complain about the design of the Elections Law and the division of constituencies, where the former promotes voting for tribal members rather than political candidates and the latter strengthens the representation of loyalist Jordanians at the expense of Jordanians from Palestinian origins and political parties. A democratic country whose constitution clearly states the right for free and fair elections and legislative independence should respect and implement these constitutional provisions.

      Nonetheless, and as wisdom has repeatedly demonstrated, reality is far different from the perfect picture painted by thinkers and political activists, blurring consequently the judgment of their followers. When addressing the issues of unfair representation, weak political organization and manipulation of parliamentary life, other external factors must be taken into account. This consideration of factors is not intended to justify the weak political system; the purpose is mere clarification.

    Taking the three decade ban on political parties for example, this decision was made against the backdrop of nationalist and leftist political notions across the Arab region, fed by proxy revolutions and movements, and the influence of irrational nationalistic demagogues. Infiltrators into Jordanian borders, whose prime concern was delegitimizing the political leadership, infringing on national sovereignty and that of its citizens under the pretext of liberalization and pan-Arab schemes at first, and then anti-Zionist sentiments, had to be confronted and controlled. A country with the size of Jordan (in population and geographic terms), which is surrounded by a volatile region and emotionally charged citizens had to resort to extreme measures to secure its stability.

       Another example is the 1993 elections law, whose anti-representative features (manifested in the one man one vote system) demonstrates the sensitivity of the Jordanian political situation. The main complaint was (and remains to be) that it favors the election of Jordanian loyalists and marginalizes political parties and Palestinian representation. So what was the result of the 1993 elections? The elections heavily reduced the influence of the Islamic Action Front (the political party of the Muslim Brotherhood) in parliament and in November 1994, the peace treaty with Israel, signed on October 26^th 1994, was ratified by a comfortable margin. These actions highlight two important points: first, Jordanian loyalist candidates were elected, and second, their majority in the parliament facilitated the signature of the Peace Treaty...a much needed Treaty. In other words, a large segment of the Jordanian society, once given the choice between voting for a candidate from a political party or a candidate representing their tribe, the choice is almost always the tribal candidate. Whether this is a modern political phenomenon or an outdated one is out of the scope of this article and general argument; the point is that this is a political phenomenon and preference. Voters are not induced to vote for a particular candidate and do enjoy utter freedom in deciding who will represent them in parliament, whether it were a political organization or a tribal organization.

     On another note, and in reference to the same elections mentioned above, not only would the overrepresentation of Palestinians in parliament obstruct a much needed peace treaty with Israel, but the fact that Palestinians are a majority in a country other than theirs, the possibility of controlling the Jordanian parliament would support the right-wing Israeli argument that the State of Palestine should be Jordan, hence refuting all Palestinian claims in the West Bank. Moreover, Jordan’s dependence on foreign aid (mainly from the USA and the EU), and the lessons it learned from the dangers of depending on regional support, plays an important role in controlling the pan-Arabist and nationalist movements that are brewing amongst clandestine political cells.

    In conclusion, a perfect political situation in Jordan would be the following: A peaceful neighbor on the west, named Palestinian state, living in peace with its Israeli neighbor.

• A stable Iraqi neighbor, free from tyrannical leaders, religious infighting and political strives.
• Stable relations with neighbors based on respect of sovereignty, independence and economic solidarity.
• A stable economy that can meet the needs of the citizens without the conditional help of donors.
• Popular consciousness on the importance of political organization and thought.

     All of the above-mentioned factors are absent the moment, and until they are achieved, the utopian picture painted by the opposition will never materialize and the calls for reforming the Elections Law must be well contemplated and studied.