The Islamists in Jordan are quarrelling. Oula Farawati watches the fight and gauges its impact on the movement Since their loss in the general elections, the Islamists in Jordan have not managed to mend fences and fix their internal frictions. The 2007 conflict that was caused by the embarrassing results of the national polls, which saw the Islamists winning only eight seats despite fielding 22 candidates, continues to date. The movement was split on whether or not to partake in the elections without receiving confirmation that it was going to be fair. The discord that ensued after the elections turned out to be unfair has divided the historically united movement in Jordan. Since then, Islamic figures have repeatedly denied any tensions. They said their Shura Council, the highest decision-making authority within the movement, was dissolved to allow the movement to put its house in order. But it was clear to anybody watching the Islamic scene that the movement was in shambles. Now the genie is out of the bottle. Last week's elections to choose the new members of the Shura Council and the secretary-general of the Islamic Action Front (IAF) and the Executive Office failed completely. The Islamists were supposed to choose hardliner Zaki bin Rsheid based on a recommendation by the Muslim Brotherhood. The historic divide of the movement of hawks and doves took their usually hush-hush fight to the public. They walked out of the elections and their leader Nabil Kofahi read a statement accusing the party of being a "mute follower" of the Muslim Brotherhood. He even called for "redrawing the relationship" between the Muslim Brotherhood and the IAF to become "healthier and be based on mutual respect and not forcing their decisions on the IAF." The IAF was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is legally registered in Jordan as a charity, after the approval of the Party Law in 1992. It was meant to become the political arm of the group in accordance with the Jordanian law that limits "dealing in politics" to political parties and makes this illegal for charities. However, the Muslim Brotherhood kept a tight grip on the IAF. But recently, things have changed. New voices have emerged from within the IAF demanding that the Muslim Brotherhood "hand over" decision-making solely to IAF leaders. It wants to become "fully autonomous". Kofahi even called the imposed election of Bin Rsheid "an insult" to the IAF. He said Bin Rsheid "was fired from the party less than a year ago because he went against party decisions deliberately and publicly; his internal trial was dropped in exchange for his removal." He believed that the decision to elect Bin Rsheid was "an insult to the party and Shura Council and all Islamist institutions. Therefore we announce our withdrawal in order for us not participate in this process that will eventually destroy the party." His supporters walked out of the Shura elections, and Hosni Jarrar who was heading the election meeting announced it was dissolved. But what followed was utterly unexpected. Former deputy Ali Abu Sukkar was elected to head the Shura Council. Jarrar later issued another memo declaring his disapproval of the election of Abu Sukkar and calling on current President of the Shura Council Ishaq Farhan to remain in his position until new elections are held. The friction within the Islamists is deepening but analysts are divided, with some expecting it to exacerbate and others seeing activists reaching agreement during the Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council Meeting at the end of this month. Mohamed Abu Rumman, an analyst specialising in Islamic movements, believes the doves or what he calls the "reformists" should have given Bin Rsheid a chance to remain within the movement while working on gathering Islamists and public support that will eventually enable them to stand alone. "The crisis within the Islamist movement has for years been re-structuring the internal relations between the different [factions] within the movement. The crisis has produced new conditions for a totally new phase and created two streams each with its leadership, agenda and rhetoric. Internal democracy must govern the internal relations. Democracy should be the only option instead of separation or schism." "The reformists have their own symbol figures, leaders and intellectuals who have the task of enlightenment and reform within the community, and can give an exceptional political speech and intellectual excellence. Being away from the internal clashes will give the reformists ample time to prepare the intellectual product expected from them by society," he said. But political analyst Mohamed Husseini is not surprised the Islamic movement was in shambles, as this was a condition that applies to all political parties in Jordan who suffer from "political adolescence". "This is an extension of what happened previously with the nationalists and the leftists. Most of our parties, if not all of them, are still in their political adolescence, although some of them were established 50 years ago. This is because they preach what they don't practise," Husseini said. The failure of the Islamic movement to unite over the years goes as well for political parties who preach democracy but don't exercise it and "remain controlled by the same leaders; that is why we have seen the same faces forever within these parties," he noted. The Islamists are still at loggerheads despite the fact the national polls to elect Jordan's lower house of parliament are expected by end of this year. If they remain at bay, their loss in the elections would be bigger and their internal friction might become unamendable.
