The new elections law highlights Jordan's "typical fears" but fails to address its pressing needs, finds Oula Farawati in Amman Little improvement was expected from a new temporary elections law in Jordan. The grim expectations were rightfully pessimistic: the electoral law is even worse now. Why is Jordan afraid of democracy? Such a question immediately comes to mind when looking at the new law; one that keeps the controversial one-man, one-vote system in place, and continues to marginalise big cities and Jordanians of "non-Jordanian" origins. Not only that, the temporary law according to which national elections will be held towards the end of this year, makes sure Islamists don't make a representative showing, despite their broad popularity. For that end, the law reduces the number of seats in urban areas where the Muslim Brotherhood holds sway, and increases them in the rural regions dominated by Bedouin tribes, who are avid supporters of the government. The Islamists were quick to respond with a hue and cry. Jamil Abu Bakr, spokesman for the Brotherhood, said: "this law directly targets the Muslim Brotherhood," he said. "But we will not be deterred and will still participate in the fall elections." Jordan's lower house of parliament was dissolved in November last year, since then, elections were waiting for a new law. But the government has only made what analysts call "cosmetic changes" to the previous law, increasing the number of seats from 110 to 120 and doubling the women's quota from six to 12. The changes for the worse that angered analysts were the ones that made electoral constituencies smaller, thus encouraging the election of family or tribe members, discouraging the election of people across family and tribal lines. "This is a Jordanian tragedy," electoral law analyst Jamil Nimri wrote. All the recommendations by the National Agenda Committee, the National Centre for Human Rights and an alliance of some 200 societies were ignored. "Why was [the law] done in such secrecy?" asked Nimri. "It is unbelievable that such an important legislation is cooked secretly, deliberately isolating anyone with an opinion." "Moderate voices have been cut off. Such voices were keen to help the government balance between demographic considerations and political guarantees," said Abu Rumman. Even the National Centre for Human Rights, a government entity, criticised the law, saying it failed to live up to international standards on several scores. The watchdog said that the division of constituencies was conducted on "unclear bases that failed to ensure equality in terms of the population density, geographical areas, the distance from the capital, and the development dimension". But beyond the details of the new law, the fact remains that Jordan's typical fears have played a major role in the composition of the legislation. Jordanians are worried that the Jordanian national identity would be diluted and "hand over the country to the Palestinians," according to political analyst Osama Sherif. For Sherif, Jordan has had to postpone, reverse or shelve plans to carry out bold reforms, and currently it finds itself in a bind. "Political reform has so far taken a serpentine path, with most Jordanians believing it had failed to materialise," he said. The political analyst insists there is no easy way out, especially as pressure is mounting on the government to balance the demographics in a country where Jordanians feel threatened and Palestinians feel marginalised and insecure. Recently, the government stripped more than 2,700 Jordanian Palestinians of their Jordanian nationality, saying the practice was a means to counter any future Israeli plans to transfer the Palestinian population of the occupied West Bank to Jordan. Although the world criticised the government action, some Jordanians were heartened. "Internally the pressure to continue with these procedures is mounting. At some point the debate will have to be broadened and institutionalised in order to alleviate frustration and avoid national friction. But such a debate could incorporate issues that the government would be loath to address at this time, such as the viability of the peace treaty with Israel, controversial constitutional reforms and the future of Palestinians in Jordan, among others," said Sherif. Jamal Tahat, however, believes it was "special agendas, pressures on the government, and the illegitimacy of the authorities" that makes Jordan afraid of a strong parliament. Sherif agrees. For him, a strong parliament means corruption and sensitive political issues now kept under wraps will be exposed and openly discussed, something that the government cannot handle. The news of elections approaching was only met by sarcasm. "Who said we wanted a parliament?" asked a commentator under the name of Abu Yazan on Khaberni.com, a Jordanian news website. "Parliament means only perks for deputies and more pressure on us, the ordinary Jordanians, who are not interested in such weak democracy." Sherif asserted that this is exactly what happens when the government systematically makes its people disbelieve in democracy. Since the last elections in 2007 were rigged, they produced a very unpopular parliament, whose major success was to vote in extra benefits for its 110 members. The string of failed, weak parliaments has damaged Jordanians' confidence in democracy. The new law does not look like it will resuscitate it.
