Electronic
voting (e-voting) in parliament is a transparent voting mechanism that
allows for accurate counts of votes and monitoring of deputies´ voting
behaviour. However, not all parliaments have introduced such a
modality in their voting sessions. Jordan is one of the countries that
have considered this voting modality but has shied away from
implementation. The question is why?
Background
E-voting was introduced in the Jordanian
House of Representative (HoR) in 2006 with the support and funding of USAID.
The system per se was installed in 2004, but was
non-operational owing to the lack of reference in the HoR’s Internal By-law (No. 800 of the year 1996) to e-voting as
a voting modality. The By-law was modified in 2006 under the tenancy of HoR
Speaker Abdel Hadi Al Majli, whereby reference was made to using ‘modern
technical means’ for voting, with the exception of voting on issues related to
the Constitution, or granting confidence to ministries and ministers (Article
77 (a)(b))[1].
According to a news article published in Al Dustur[2],
the modification of Article 77 to make reference to using technical means for
voting was attributed to fears that USAID would withdraw its funding to the
system unless a provision was introduced to allow for e-voting.
The
use of e-voting was indeed demanded by MPs; prior to adopting the 2016 General
Budget, 92 MPs circulated a memo that demanded that votes be cast through
e-voting – a request that was rejected by the HoR’s Speaker, who attributed his
decision to technical malfunctions[3].
According to a news article[4],
Prime Minister Abdullah Al Nsur was seriously concerned about using e-voting,
whereby the government contacted several MPs in order to withdraw their support
to the aforementioned memo. Such resistance to e-voting - according to the same
news article - was due to the fact that this modality allows for accurate
counting of the votes in controversial bills, such as the Budget. The
adoption of the 2017 General Budget was also made voting through a show of
hands, which led to a number of MPs criticising this modality instead of using
e-voting. The incumbent Speaker of the HoR, Atef Al Tarawneh, snubbed the
complaints and indicated that the voting modality rested upon the Speaker’s
discretion[5].
The 2018 General Budget was also adopted by a show of hands, which was widely
criticised by RASED[6],
who indicated that this modality did not allow observers to accurately identify
the MPs who voted for or against the two laws[7].
In spite of allowing the media and observers to attend the voting session, the
quick and generally uncontested count of hands does not facilitate the
identification of the voting behaviour of MPs on key issues. It must be noted
that the most recent vote on the 2018 Budget was immensely controversial,
considering that it introduced price hikes on various sectors. The quick
deliberations and the choice of voting through a show of hands (that is subject
to manipulation) might explain the choice of words of the Islamic Action Front,
who described the process as being ‘theatrical’.
It is important to underline that the first bylaw was promulgated
in 1952 (No.831, Official Gazette No. 1105) and not 1956 as the law firm
indicated. The by-law stipulated in Article 47(a) that voting on bills related
to the Constitution or granting confidence to ministers/ministries shall be by
voice vote with name mentioning/calling. Article 47(b) indicated that other
bills shall be voted on by show of hands or secret voting. The by-law was
amended 1957, whereby Article 77 was modified to make reference to documenting
decisions and deliberations.
No modification was introduced to the by-law since then, but a new
By-law was issued in 1996 (No. 800) in which reference to secret voting was
deleted, and parliamentarians’ vote was limited to voice votes (with mention of
names) for issues related to the Constitution and granting confidence to
ministers and ministries, and through the show of hands for other issues. The
repetition of the vote upon the request of MPs was done through show hands, or
rising votes, or voice votes with mentioning of names.
The 1996 By-law was amended in 2000 (No.21) whereby the modifications
introduced were related to the bills that are sent back from the Senate. It was
modified again in 2006 (No. 777) whereby Article 77(b) included the employment
of technical means as another voting modality. Finally, a new By-law was issued
in 2013 (No.801) and amended in 2014 (No.802), the latter having modified 23
articles/paragraphs in total, but none was related to voting issues.
The current By-law (No.801 of 2013 and its modification No. 802 of
2014) maintained technical means as a voting mechanism. Indeed, neither
procedural nor administrative clarifications were added to the concept of
‘technical means’, whether in the 1996 version or the current version of the
By-law. However, the other three voting modalities (voice voting, rising vote,
or hand show) are neither clarified nor detailed in the By-law. Therefore,
neither the mechanism of e-voting per se should be challenged,
nor the issue of liability, based on extrapolation. Any vote however could be
challenged by MPs according to Article 88 (c), irrespective of the modality.
It must be clarified that only 3 By-laws were issued since 1952
(1952, 1996, and 2013 which were modified 4 times in 1957, 2000, 2006, and
2014) - a figure that is modest in comparison to other laws and by-laws.
It could be assumed that MPs are content with the current version, or that any
attempts to modify the by-law were thwarted (Article 179 of the By-law
stipulates that the by-law’s articles could be modified based on a proposal
made by 10 MPs at least, which should be shared with the Parliament. Upon the
latter’s approval, the proposal is sent to the Legal Committee, which must
study the proposal and subsequently submit its recommendations to the
Parliament). If there are forces from within the Parliament/external
influential forces that oppose the By-law’s modification, including regarding
e-voting, the amendment of the By-law would likely not take place.
Controversy of e-voting
Based on extra-official conversations,
e-voting is resisted owing to the following factors:
·
Voting by show of hands
(or other traditional means, such as by rising vote) would allow for
manipulation of the vote when controversial bills are the subject of the vote.
Meanwhile, e-voting is accurate and does not allow for miscounts. It has been
indicated that it has become common practice to count the votes, announce the
results, and immediately adjourn the session to avoid challenges to the
vote or discussions.
·
E-voting would imply that
the names of the MPs who voted for or against certain controversial bills would
be displayed on screens - which would allow observers and the media to share
this information and relay it to the public as official and accurate data.
Meanwhile, the current practice of hand show leaves room for speculation and denial
regarding the voting behavior of certain MPs.
·
It must be underlined that
according to sources, MPs are subject to pressure from a number of
institutions, including the Intelligence Agency, whereby they are directed to
give either a positive or negative vote, irrespective of their actual positons
and beliefs. Therefore, a show of hands will protect MPs from reprisal from
constituents, while abiding by the instructions received from intelligence.
How can e-voting be introduced?
Efforts have been made by national forces and international actors
to introduce e-voting and change the bylaw to render e-voting as the standard
voting mechanism. However, and owing to the considerations mentioned above,
other solutions can be explored.
Instead of requesting the modification of the By-law to render
e-voting as the standard voting modality, the HoR
could be asked to commit to using the e-voting system an x number of times.
This could guarantee that more bills are voted on through the electronic
system, thus enhancing transparency, and the HoR would be able to pass certain
bills through traditional means when deemed necessary. The employment of
e-voting would be hailed by observers, the media, and influential NGOs, which
would consequently likely lead to demands (from observers/media/the public/and
even MPs) that more bills be adopted through e-voting. The number of bills
passed in that modality might increase with time, without having pressured the
HoR to use e-voting solely, or having imposed restrictions to its practice.
Furthermore, there would be no need for lengthy legislative procedures related
to the modification of the By-law, thus ensuring swift implementation.
Another proposal is to modify Article 88(b) to read: ‘Expect for
the two cases provided for in paragraph (a) of this article, a vote be taken by
show of hands, by rising vote, or by use of technical means as decided by the
Speaker, with preference being given to technical means.
In this scenario, the HoR would not be obliged to use e-voting as
the default voting mechanism, but it would acknowledge the preference to such a
modality. However, the proposed modification would not guarantee the employment
of e-voting, or legally oblige the HoR’s Speaker to use the system.
One other option is to explore technical solutions that would
allow for revealing results on the display screens instead of the names of MPs.
Advantages of this proposal are:
·
The accuracy of the
vote would be ensured.
·
The use of the
system might not be resisted, considering that MPs would not have their names
revealed on screens, although the names would be recorded digitally for
archiving and revision by the HoR/government.
However, observers will not be able to monitor and report on MPs’
voting behaviour.
In conclusion, and based on the observations and comments made by
different actors, it is unlikely that the HoR would agree to modifying the
By-law in order to render e-voting as the sole voting mechanism. Instead, it
would be advised to consider options that would render e-voting as the preferred voting
modality, albeit not the only voting modality. In short, it would be
important to reach a compromise that would encourage and commit the HoR to use
e-voting as much as possible, whilst also ensuring that the HoR has room to
employ the traditional voting means when necessary. Whether
this solution requires legislative revision or not would depend on the solution
that is accepted by all parties concerned.
