Parliamentary Government and Jordanian MPs

Jordanian Parliament

  Jordan has been on a path towards democracy and good governance for the past two decades. The National Covenant of 1991 came after  a ban of nearly 30 years on political parties, following the events of 1957 and the confrontation between leftists and pan-Arabists with the regime. Parliamentary work was also frozen after the 1967 war and the resulting state of emergency. Democracy saw its way back in 1989 with the celebration of general elections, and two years later, the reconciliation between the regime and the opposition that took form in the National Covenant. The Covenant served as a starting point towards political plurality and reviving party life; it led to the 1992 Political Parties Law which served as a new clean slate for relations between parties and the regime. Of importance was the Jordanian vision of a gradual transformation into a full democracy where cabinets are the product of parliamentary elections, formed by the winning party - or the winning parties. Irrespective of the electoral system or party system that was to be followed, the vision was there, evidenced by the fourth clause of the Covenant that read: “any party that heads a ministry or takes part in it must ensure equality and equal opportunity amongst citizens 1”. Although the Covenant was never ratified by the parliament or passed as a law or reflected in the constitution, it was considered as a reference point and led to the gradual and incremental development of political freedom and party life, reflected in laws related to parties, their organization, their activities and their participation in elections.

The Elections Law and the Party Law will not be tackled and dissected in this article as many studies have been conducted that highlight their pros and cons. The constitutional constraints and the fact that the above-mentioned laws fall short of enabling the formation of any cabinet by parties explain the institutional make-up in the country. The article intends to shed light on the recent demands  made by a number of parliamentarians to be appointed ministers in the cabinet of Prime Minister Abdullah Nsour, under the slogan of “modern and democratic governments”.

This claim raises many important points and sheds light on the general political culture in the Kingdom. When a number of representatives demand taking part in the cabinet, what are the grounds that they base their demands on? That the Prime Minister promised them so after giving his cabinet their vote of confidence? That they form part of an important coalition in parliament? That it is a step that reflects democratization and a continuation of the process that started in 1991? Are such claims democratic?

As a Jordanian, my every history teacher since sixth grade started off her class (always a female teacher) proudly explaining the greek origins of the word democracy, which is basically translated into the rule of people. Of course this implies that decisions are made by abiding with the golden rule of "majority rule". So when our aspiring parliamentarians demand to be appointed as ministers and assume executive powers to govern and shape policies, the question will have to be: were they (as individuals and representatives of a political thought and program) chosen by the people? Yes. Where they chosen by the majority of the people? No. The question therefore is not about the legality or constitutionality of representatives taking office - as many countries allow MPs to take office - but about the criteria based on which they are chosen. Had they been part of a party that won the majority of votes on the national level, where the party members have a solid popular support and won the hearts and minds of Jordanians with their programs, agendas and political visions, then their demands would have been legitimate. Taking part in a post-election parliamentary coalition, after running as an independent, where the voter has no say or control in the MP's decision to join a certain coalition, does not in any shape or form mean that that this MP represents the majority of the population, no matter how big the coalition is. Appealing to a community of 10,000 citizens and winning a vote based on personal ties, reputability and general (and vague) pledges and then independently joining a parliamentary coalition does not mean that this MP nor his/her coalition represent the collective will of voters. Therefore, this MP has no right in demanding a cabinet portfolio and should consider following previous steps and actions that lead the way to the formation of parliamentary governments.

The claim itself is not being attacked in this article; it is the logic behind it and its voidness of democratic values that is. In the democratic western world, electoral systems are diverse and lead to different models of forming both parliaments and governments. No model should be championed as each culture has its own realities and conditions that should be reflected in its political system, but all of these western democracies have one important factor in common: people always choose their parliaments and their governments based on consent reflected in the majority concept. Whether it were a coalition government formed of four major parties, or a coalition government with a dominant party and other smaller parties,  or a purely majority government formed of one party, these governments are always shaped by parties that have won the majority of votes and trust by the people. Governments are based on the choice of voters who trust the candidates and/or the parties they voted for to form democratic parliaments and governments that represent the will of the people. That is exactly what we need in Jordan: parliamentarians that represent the will of the people, and who appeal to voters based on their agendas and programs and join forces based on that objective. Had elections seen the success of major parties that won votes from different constituencies across the country, and managed to join forces and form coalitions with other major parties, then such claims should - and would have - been taken into account.

To conclude, when King abdullah addressed the parliament two days ago and discussed the demand of a number of parliamentarians to be  appointed ministers, he wisely opposed the step and called for strengthening the present coalitions at the parliament and the internal system as preliminary steps towards the goal of forming a parliamentary government. Considering that our parties are still very weak and that their popular base is fragmented, and that loyalty to tribes and family links still steer the majority of voters in their selection of a candidate, our parliament still lacks a national majority identity. Our representatives (many not all) won with the support of their regional loyalists according to personal criteria, and not according to an ideological/ political base which can be shared by citizens across the country. Therefore, speaking of a coalition that represents Jordanian citizens in parliament is not accurate. The current system is not ideal nor democratic, as ministers are appointed based on the recommendation of the prime minister following a criteria of professional and intellectual capacity. Nonetheless, and unfortunately, foregoing democracy at the moment and maintaining the status quo is by far a better option than responding to these demands and foregoing both democracy and efficiency.

1 http://www.pm.gov.jo/arabic/index.php?page_type=pages&part=1&page_id=80