The True Face of Jordan - Essay Example

Introduction By comparison to many other Arab governments, Jordan appears to be a liberal system in which the people enjoy freedoms that are common in western liberal democracies. It is arguably the most democratic government in the Middle East (Wiktorowicz, par. 3). While most countries in the region are highly authoritarian states that do not allow political participation or free expression, Jordan has gradually, over the past two decades, adopted liberalization measures that have moved it away from its prior martial law and authoritarian centralization of political power. A closer examination of Jordan's political development since the late 1980s, however, reveals a more complex picture of a monarchy periodically tightening and loosening its political grip at strategic times in order to ensure its hold on power. Economic instability largely brought about by Jordan's reliance on oil rents as its nearly exclusive economic engine has led the regime to open parliamentary elections and allow expanded political rights in order to satiate tribal factions of the population that have traditionally acquiesced to the monarchy. When these factions have become dissatisfied with their economic situation, their expanded access to political participation has been designed to steer them away from a demand for regime change. Further complicating the regime's balancing act has been Jordan's relationship with the U.S., which has benefited the country from a global economic standpoint but has been domestically swept under the proverbial rug. The potential for close cooperation with the U.S. such as in the areas of trade and military cooperation to upset the populace within Jordan and cause political upheaval is substantial. Ultimately, the true face of Jordan has been that of a politically precarious regime that has been teetering on the brink of popular unrest due to economic and political policies of the government that have been necessary to ensure its survival. History of Political Liberalization Jordan's emergence onto the liberalization stage began in 1989, when then King Hussein "began taking a series of extraordinary steps toward political opening," in the midst of "the first Palestinian intifada (uprising) raging just across the Jordan River in the West Bank, domestic discontent spilling into his own streets, and his country's finances in tatters" (Lucas 137). The process, known as "managed liberalization," was geared toward creating "an environment amenable to economic reform" (Cunningham, para 21). These steps included a revival of Parliament and restoration of national elections. "Jordan's political liberalization process has included a variety of elements including: the holding of regular and generally free parliamentary elections in 1989, 1993, and 1997; the institutionalization of the National Charter in 1991 which was authored by a broad-based coalition of societal and official actors; and the elimination of martial law by the early 1990s and the legalization of political parties" (par. 22). Other measures included more freedom of the press, increased freedom of expression, and greater freedom for Jordanians to engage in political activities" (Greenwood, par. 21). The tumultuous atmosphere of popular dissent in the country, brought on by the poor economy and the end of government subsidies on certain staples such as bread and fuel, required the government to ease the unrest by making such a serious attempt at political reform (Brand 5). Thus, the decision to pursue a more liberal system in Jordan was driven by a shrewd political calculation that popular discontent with the state of affairs in the country would be channeled away from the regime by taking such steps. The evolution of this liberalization process, marked by periodic tightening and loosening of the monarchy's grip, would continue to be governed more by these calculations focused on how best to preserve the king's hold on power rather than on any real dedication to the merits of political reform and democracy. "The Jordanian government's liberalization efforts are part of a 'survival strategy' designed to ensure the long-term survival of the existing regime" (par. 6). In 1994, Jordan entered into a peace agreement with Israel, partly as a result of the government's effort to improve economic conditions that remained poor in the years following initial steps toward liberalization. This decision was not well received by the populace and "precipitated enduring societal unrest, especially among Islamist elements. Their criticism, which grew increasingly harsh throughout 1995, was a contributing factor in the regime's retreat on the political liberalization front beginning in the mid-1990s and continuing to the present" (Cunningham, par. 21). The influence of the Islamist factions on newly open political process in Jordan, in conjunction with a foreign policy that has been inextricably linked to the United States, continues to be a counterweight toward more aggressive moves toward opening the political system. The liberalization process in Jordan has been referred to as "a negotiated transition," as a "regime survival strategy," and as "defensive democratization" (Nanes, par. 12). "These terms highlight the transition's limited nature and the maintenance of tight control by the state over the pace and direction of change. Recent clamp-downs on the press and other civil freedoms in response to popular opposition to the 1994 peace treaty with Israel have led some to call the democratization process all but frozen.21 Although few would predict a return to the pre-1989 martial law era, increased political liberalization appears to be on hold" (par. 12). In effect, peace with Israel has led to a new brand of political opposition that is not related to the country's economic conditions, and has precipitated a degree of reversal of the very strategy that was designed to overcome the prior dissent caused by poor economic conditions. Political openness only intensifies this new form of opposition, although it had placated the prior form. Relations with the United States Jordanian/U.S. relations have evolved substantially since the first Gulf War, when Jordan refused to support U.S. military efforts to oust Iraq from Kuwait. Jordan has since submitted to a U.S. brokered peace agreement with Israel, has entered into a free trade agreement with the U.S., has entered the World Trade Organization by implementing political and economic liberalization reforms that were largely driven by U.S. influence, and has provided the U.S. with direct military and logistical support in the post-9/11 "War on Terror" and associated invasion of Iraq. These efforts by Jordan to forge closer relations with the U.S. have largely been driven by a prudent acknowledgement that Jordan's economic health and consequent regime survival are dependent on its ability to effectively navigate and integrate within a U.S. dominated world. The current king, Abdallah, "has aggressively sought to intensify and deepen relations with the United States not only at the official level, as evidenced by a number of state-level bilateral visits since taking power, but also at the commercial, public relations, and security levels" (Cunningham, par. 28). Despite the political appropriateness of cooperating with the U.S. from a foreign policy perspective, the decision to do so has been highly unpopular at home, and a leading factor contributing to a process of deliberalization. The propensity of Jordanians to openly demonstrate against the U.S. and criticize Jordan's cooperation has led the regime to clamp down on free expression lest there by a groundswell of discontent regarding the government's policies that could threaten the stability of the regime. The monarchy's desire to "quell popular opposition to normalization and contain the Islamic opposition have certainly been significant factors behind the reversals in Jordan's liberalization process since 1993" (Greenwood, par. 53). Jordan's cooperation with the U.S. has reached an apex since 9/11. "Since the beginning of this war Jordan has shared valuable intelligence with the United States on terrorist groups, sent troops to help with humanitarian efforts in post-Taliban Afghanistan, and offered strong diplomatic support for the Bush administration's campaign to pressure Saddam Husayn to disarm" (par. 46). It was also reported in the run up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq that Jordan would allow the limited stationing of American troops on Jordanian soil for search and rescue missions, and would allow U.S. warplanes to utilize Jordanian airspace (Shadid, par. 1). This extensive cooperation with the U.S. has made Jordan so strategically important to the U.S. that the Americans have not been pressing for continued progress with political liberalization, for fear they may lose the such a strong ally in such close geographic proximity to Iraq (Al-Arian, par. 7). In effect, there has been a relative absence of international pressure on Jordan to further democratize. The Jordanian monarchy has thus benefited from a relatively free hand in determining the extent to which it needs to tweak the liberalization process in a way that is most conducive to survival of the regime. Current State of Liberalization Jordan remains a tightly controlled political system in which the government exercises direct influence over grassroots voluntary political organizations, continues to hamper freedom of press, and restricts the ability of the people to assemble and demonstrate (Wiktorowicz, par. 3). "Jordan has not fully returned to military rule, but the legislature has again been indefinitely suspended, and most public protests are banned" (Lucas 137). These developments are indicative of a regime that is less than completely dedicated to the principals of reform and democratization. Obviously, other factors are influencing the monarchy's decision making regarding the extent and timing of implementation of policies that would open the political process. Liberalization is clearly not an end in and of itself, but rather a vehicle that the monarchy has selectively and strategically deployed to achieve stability of the status quo. Conclusion Jordan is a deceptively liberal country. It is arguably the most open and democratic governmental system in the Middle East, and yet it is quite authoritarian when compared with western democracies. The degree of commitment on the part of the Jordanian monarchy toward liberalization has been less than total. Political unrest in the late '80s resulting from economic turmoil called for unprecedented liberalization measures that had the effect of diverting popular resentment from a focus on the regime. The promise of open political participation was hoped to give people a voice in their future that would quell any sentiment to break faith with the regime. Following peace with Israel in 1994, this approach became more of a liability than a benefit to the stability of the regime. Islamist elements became fired up in opposition to the peace agreement, and the newly open political system gave them an avenue to voice their displeasure with the monarchy and a pulpit from which to fan the flames of popular resentment. To make matters worse, the beginning of increasing cooperation with the U.S. that was marked by the Israeli peace accord constituted an additional unpopular move by the monarchy. Nevertheless, the regime could not abandon these policies lest they lead to rekindled economic turmoil. The only choice to quell these opposition forces was to backtrack on the liberalization process. "The Jordanian monarchy has managed to hang on through the tumults of the past decade-and-a-half by adroitly wielding the twin survival strategies of liberalization and deliberalization-using the former when royal interests seemed to dictate and reversing the process when the opposition threatened to get too strong" (Lucas 137). So long as raw political calculations geared toward maintaining power continue to be the true face of Jordan, as opposed to a genuine dedication to liberalization, there will never be a truly liberal and democratized system in place. Works Cited Al-Arian, L. "Mustafa Hamarneh Examines Jordanian Politics." The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs 22 (2003):70. Brand, L. "The Effects of the Peace Process on Political Liberalization in Jordan." Journal of Palestine Studies 28 (1999):1. Cunningham, K. "Factors Influencing Jordan's Information Revolution: Implications for Democracy." The Middle East Journal 56 (2002):240. Greenwood, S. "Jordan's 'New Bargain:' The Political Economy of Regime Security." The Middle East Journal 57 (2003):248. Lucas, R. "Deliberalization in Jordan." Journal of Democracy 14 (2003):137. Nanes, S. "Fighting Honor Crimes: Evidence of Civil Society in Jordan." The Middle East Journal 57 (2003):112. Shadid, A. "Jordan to Allow Stationing of U.S. Troops." Washington Post 29 Jan. 2003: A1. Wiktorowicz, Q. "The Limits of Democracy in the Middle East: The Case of Jordan" The Middle East Journal 53 (1999):606. Read More