Jordan - Politics
There is a great disparity between the rich and the poor in the kingdom and there is a lot of conspicuous consumption, and people see it. Poverty rates are running at 25 percent in the desert kingdom. Demand for change and the resulting conflict experienced during Arab Spring movements in other countries has been more muted in Jordan, but by late 2012 that appeared to be changing.
Angry Jordanians, fed up with economic constraints that have led to higher gas prices, took their ire out on their king in mid-November 2012 in mass protests - a rare public display against the monarchy. King Abdullah had fired four prime ministers in the past year and has backed an election law that reduced the independence and influence of opposition parties. His popularity is diminishing as popular protests grew. The issue is the silent majority which is the crux of the opposition in Jordan. A lot of people are not happy and they are angry - they are secular - and most of their resentments come from economic hardships and corruption in the country. Also people are very upset at - if they want to read the future it is doom and gloom.
On November 14, 2012 Jordanian teachers went on strike hours after the government increased fuel prices in a bid to qualify for much-needed international aid. Prime Minister Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour announced the decision to cancel fuel subsidies – and therefore raise prices to consumers -- during a Tuesday evening TV newscast. At midnight, the price of gasoline was raised by as much as 14 percent and cooking gas by 50 percent. Within minutes of the announcement, protesters crowded the streets in Amman and cities across Jordan chanting slogans and calling for the government’s downfall.
The cumulative effect of years of bad policies have destroyed the country, destroyed the economy, destroyed the lives of the Jordanians. Protesters cite high inflation, corruption and a government that repeatedly promises but fails to deliver reform. The protests in Amman were of great concern to the West, where King Abdullah is widely seen as the guarantor of stability - not only in Jordan, but in the tense Middle East. As political change has rolled through the Middle East, Western observers assumed Jordan would remain unaffected. Increasingly, that opinion seems short-sighted.
King Hussein ruled Jordan from 1953 to 1999, surviving a number of challenges to his rule, drawing on the loyalty of his military, and serving as a symbol of unity and stability for both the East Bank and Palestinian communities in Jordan. In 1989 and 1993, Jordan held free and fair parliamentary elections. Controversial changes in the election law led Islamist parties to boycott the 1997 elections. King Hussein ended martial law in 1991 and legalized political parties in 1992.
King Abdullah II succeeded his father Hussein following the latter's death in February 1999. King Abdullah moved quickly to reaffirm Jordan's peace treaty with Israel and its relations with the U.S., and has since focused the government's agenda on economic reform, political development, and poverty alleviation.
Jordan has a population of 6.5 million, more than half of whom are Palestinians, refugees from the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli wars or their descendants. Demographics are a very sensitive subject in Jordan. For one, some, including factions in Israel, have suggested Jordan as a Palestinian homeland alternative to the West Bank and Gaza – a vision that has been deemed unacceptable by both Jordanians and Palestinians. Fear of being outnumbered has also led to a rise of nativist sentiment among Jordan’s tribes, which seek to protect and preserve Jordan for “real Jordanians.” These conservative tribal Jordanians, because of the 1970 civil war and a host of other historical legacies, will never, ever accept that their country is majority Palestinian and will do everything in their power to make sure that the monarchy represents the tribal communities before it represents the Palestinians.
Early on in his rein, King Abdullah acknowledged that Palestinians have been marginalized and vowed to change this. At the same time, according to Human Rights Watch, Jordan has arbitrarily stripped thousands of Palestinian Jordanians of their citizenship over the past few years, depriving them of basic rights to education and health care. In 2010, Jordan’s interior minister denied revoking anyone’s citizenship, saying Jordan had merely "suspended" giving out social security numbers “pending reunification of families" in the West Bank. Some suggest Jordan is trying to control and minimize the demographics of the Palestinian population in an effort to ward off any prospects of being designated a Palestinian homeland.
The government routinely licensed political parties and other associations but prohibited membership in unlicensed political parties. The High Court of Justice may dissolve a party if it concludes that the party violated the constitution or the law. The law stipulates that a political party must have a minimum of 500 founding members from five governorates. Opposition parties, including small parties dissolved in 2007 after the law's enactment, complained that the law was unconstitutional and obstructed political dynamism. Political analysts and opposition parties also called on the government to take active measures to promote party development, including amendments to the electoral system that would place greater emphasis on parties. Political parties, NGOs, and independent candidates found the registration process onerous and costly. Parties criticized the GID's annual screening process of founding members. Political parties complained that the mandated public funding of 50,000 dinars ($71,100) was insufficient to operate effective campaigns.
The constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press; however, in practice the government imposed some restrictions on these rights. Journalists reported that the threat of detention and imprisonment under the penal code for a variety of offenses and stringent fines of as much as 20,000 dinars ($28,000) under the press and publications law for defamation led to self-censorship. The government's use of "soft containment" of journalists, such as financial support, scholarships for relatives, and special invitations, led to significant control of media content.
The law provides punishment of as long as three years' imprisonment for insulting the king, slandering the government or foreign leaders, offending religious beliefs, or stirring sectarian strife and sedition. The government regularly fined journalists for such crimes. According to the Amman-based National Center for Defending the Freedom of Journalists (CDFJ) stated, more than 45 journalists had cases pending before a Jordanian court having been charged with a range of violations, including slander, contempt of court and violating laws, such as the penal code, press and publications law and state security law.
Jordan's continuing structural economic difficulties, burgeoning population, and more open political environment have led to the emergence of a variety of small political parties. The government faces a key decision: accept a moderate Islamic opposition that favors democracy or, by failing to open up the system, create a far more militant Islamic underground bent on direct confrontation with the monarchy.
Amnesty International on 07 February 2024 condemned the "widespread campaign of repression" launched by Jordanian security forces and intelligence personnel since last October, which included the arrest of hundreds for expressing their support for the rights of Palestinians in Gaza or criticizing the government's policies towards Israel. The organization said that the authorities arrested at least a thousand demonstrators and bystanders during the pro-Gaza protests in the Jordanian capital, Amman, within one month between October and November, adding that at least six others had been arrested since last November.
Amnesty noted that "the detainees were charged under the new cybercrime law issued last August due to posts on social media expressing pro-Palestinian sentiments, criticizing peace treaties or economic agreements concluded by the authorities with Israel, or calling for general strikes and protests." Amnesty International considers that the Jordanian cybercrime law uses “vague, imprecise and broad terminology, criminalizes any speech that might offend law enforcement officials, and limits the possibility of anonymity on the Internet.”
The organization also claimed that “local governors used the Crime Prevention Law of 1954 to administratively detain some defendants, arresting them without charge or trial, and did not release them on bail until they signed a document pledging to stop participating in demonstrations,” noting that “Jordanian law does not provide Administrative detainees have the opportunity to challenge their detention.” It added that under international law and standards, authorities may not ask individuals for “pledges” not to organize or participate in “future gatherings.”
The organization indicated that its lawyer and other lawyers “representing more than ten clients who were arbitrarily arrested by the intelligence services in connection with the pro-Palestine protests. They were detained for at least a month without being allowed to contact their families or lawyers, before they were released without being charged or referred” to the State Security Court. Amnesty International called on the Jordanian authorities to repeal the Crime Prevention Law and ensure the release of any person in administrative detention or accused of committing a recognizable crime, in accordance with international standards.
Amnesty International's Jordan researcher, Diana Semaan, said: "No one should be subjected to arrest or trial simply for expressing their views on the war in Gaza or criticizing their government's policies." She considered that "the Jordanian authorities launched a repressive campaign, using highly restrictive legislation such as the Cybercrime Law, to eliminate what remained of the signs of freedom and opposition." She stressed, "The Jordanian authorities must immediately release all those who were arbitrarily detained or tried simply for exercising their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and drop the charges against them. They must also amend the Cybercrime Law of 2023 in accordance with international standards."
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
