Jordanian Elections Indicate Dissatisfaction
Jordan, suffering from popular frustration with a stagnated economy, is now witnessing political apathy. Opposition parties in Jordan, including the Islamic Action Front (IAF), the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, unsuccessfully attempted to rally support in the face of new reform. In the latest election on September 20, 63.5 percent of registered voters abstained, according to The Jerusalem Post. Despite the IAF expressing optimism at the power of grassroots movements and anti-monarchical sentiment during a time of high social and economic tensions, the low turnout and opposition parties’ disappointing gains indicate a prevailing dissatisfaction with the government.
Since the Arab Spring, the King and the pro-monarchy Parliamentary majority have instituted a series of electoral reforms. These included introducing a mixed electoral system; the lion’s share of the Lower Parliament (popularly elected) is elected by the one-person one-vote system and the rest is proportionally elected by a party-list system.
Despite this law, the actual change in the political system is minor, with districts skewed toward tribal, pro-monarch areas. The general failure of the reforms to encourage optimism in voters and the inadequate addressing of tensions affecting the people, such as the growing unemployment rate and strain of refugees on the country, have led to increasing apathy concerning politics.
The elections seemed potentially drastic in other aspects. For the first time in a decade, the Islamic Action Front campaigned after boycotting the past elections on accounts of fraud and unfairness. Historically, the IAF has been the only major opposition party to the government, with most of the Lower Parliament aligning with the King. Many of these pro-monarchy members obtain their influence from tribal affiliations, the most important determinant for many voters. Partly because of these affiliations and partly because of the level of turnout, the IAF gained only 15 seats, with other Islamist parties gaining an additional 2. Compared to the total of 130 seats, this small number, though symbolically important in an anti-governmental, pro-Islamist statement, is relatively powerless in shaping policy.
The combination of a more legitimate democracy and a more diverse Parliament could have potentially relieved the weight of criticism on the King. Both aspects have fallen short, with complaints of fraud persisting, an unenthusiastic reaction from the citizens, and a remaining strong majority. Had parties such as the IAF gained more ground, the monarchy might have been able to shift away complete blame for the country’s problems while still maintaining an advantage that hinders any possible opposition legislation initiatives.
The tensions in Jordan remain unaddressed after this election, as concerns of electoral fairness pervade. Even though Jordan’s reforms have increased legitimacy, especially internationally, the latest attempts at addressing citizens’ worries have been symbolic and lacking substance in the public’s view, leaving its problems subject to intensification.