| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq-Jordan | |
| Jordanian king puts constitutional monarchy plan on the back-burner | |
| 2005-08-27 | |
| Jordan's reform-minded, U.S.-educated monarch, King Abdullah II, follows two separate lines when discussing the idea of surrendering some powers and moving his kingdom toward a European-style constitutional monarchy. On American talk shows, Abdullah has sounded at ease with fundamental change. But back home, he says the time is not yet ripe as Jordan faces new extremist pressures and attacks. The 43-year-old monarch enjoys broad support in his country – a rarity among Mideast leaders – and is seen in Washington as a bulwark against terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, as was his late father, King Hussein. During a U.S. visit earlier this year, Abdullah told a television interviewer in his British-accented English that he was "absolutely" open to moving Jordan toward a constitutional monarchy. Upon emerging from a White House meeting he was even more specific, saying the "crown can take a step back and the people can take a step forward." That's the answer when he's abroad. But it's a different story at home, where Abdullah is also battling an underground militancy bent on killing him. In a June debate in the nation's newspapers over amending Jordan's constitution to accommodate proposed changes in legal code, Abdullah put his foot down. "There's no justification for amending the constitution at this stage. Any talk of constitutional amendment is a red line," the king said.
The newspaper debate on the constitution was not about basic reform of the Jordanian system, and government officials quickly suggested that Abdullah had not meant to signal a reversal of his desire to share power. They said he merely sought to put things in order before he steers his nation towards change. One of the main challenges is Jordan's 30 splintered political parties, some based on tribal affiliations. Abdullah has said he wants those 30 merged into two or three so that lawmakers and, possibly Cabinet officials, could be elected on party banner instead of tribal links. Social, cultural and political legislation inherited from the days of martial law must also be revamped. Toujan Faisal, a former lawmaker who was jailed for 100 days three years ago for accusing a former Cabinet of financial wrongdoing, said electing prime ministers is a good start for constitutional change. "It will help consolidate the king's popularity, considering the democratic changes around us and the looming threat of militants in the region," she said. However, political intrigue in neighboring Iraq and in Israel and the Palestinian territories – plus terror plots against Jordan – may have slowed down domestic reforms. Currently, there are at least 18 trials in the military court involving scores of militants – some linked to al-Qaeda – who have plotted to kill Americans, Israelis or other foreigners, topple the king or destabilize his kingdom. Nevertheless, Abdullah has pledged to press ahead with reforms introduced under his father in 1989. Those included the revival of a multiparty system, banned since a 1956 leftist coup attempt, and the ending of martial law, imposed since the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Since he took the throne in 1999, the king has allowed a relatively freer media, under laws that also advocate more freedom for women. In January, he unveiled plans to form elected councils that will oversee development across the desert kingdom, a move meant to give wider autonomy to outlying communities. He also has promised a 10-year "national agenda" that the Jordanian government says will overhaul all sectors, including political – a plan that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hailed in a June visit as strengthening "grass-roots democracy here in Jordan." A new Cabinet of reformists was formed in April and has since allowed public protests banned by its predecessor. Still, critics say the moves have been barely enough. "The government may have eased off toward certain public activities, but it has failed to make any tangible steps to reflect its good intentions – especially with regards to the elections law," said lawmaker Ali Abu-Sukar. | |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #1 There are three obvious possibilities here. The first is that the king has no intention to ever share power. The second is that he is either rationalizing keeping his power, or is trying to democritize from the top down. The third, if he was most serious about democracy, would be that he would start by democratizing from the bottom up, that is, to make his country used to democracy by familiarity. Councils, boards, committees, etc., being elected and having to vote for everything. Nothing is too petty for democracy, is the idea. That is, to get his people into a mind-set of automatically questioning authority, unless it is elected. When a group tries to make a decision, somebody automatically chimes in, "Let's vote for it!", and it is accepted without question. And, importantly, then people also learn about the limits to democracy, such as military and police service. He could also seriously impair the opponents to his regime by requiring them to be democratic. Imams and other anti-democrats hate having to be approved of by their followers. They see their legitimacy as direct from Allah, and it bugs the heck out of them for the group to say "no" to their schemes, instead of blindly obeying. "Why are you Imam? We didn't elect you!" |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-08-27 10:11 |