Well the first answer that jumps to my mind is, whatever Jordanians do, they would be better of than having such a parliament if it is so lousy.

Actually the electronic newspaper {Elaph} said this evening, that 71% of Jordanians cannot point to one achievement of this parliament, and 49% do not have confidence in it. Therefore, if it is a matter of "vox populi" and parliament is usually subject to "vox populi", then its dismissal is the logical act to undertake. At the same time if we follow the same reasoning, the current government is under plenty of flack from both the public and the local media, for its inability to deal with the country's soci-economic and political problems. So, are we likely to see the government go, or at least re-shuffled very soon, given that the holidays for Eid al Adha will start on Thursday?. I don't know, parliament is subject to "vox populi" but the government appointment is by royal decree.

As a matter of fact, the King has given his directives today, to the government to prepare for a new eletions law, as well as prepare as soon as possible for the next elections. I guess if there is to be a new law, then I would say it might take longer than the constitutional period of 4 months from now, to hold the elections. Unless, of course there were already plans undertaken prior to the announcement of dismissal of this parliament.

Of course it appears paradoxical the dismissal of such a politically compliant parliament so early. Also, it appears paradoxical also, to have a new elections law which is demanded by the Muslim Brotherhood; the main opposition in the country. Moreover, unless there are various laws lurking in the bags of the various ministers to be approved of, as emergency laws, the only law having trouble between the government and the former parliament was the law of Income tax, which certainly doesn't warrant the dismissal of parliament over it.

Consequently, why not shed our cynicism aside for a change, and look at the situation from the perspective that, HM King Abdullah IInd. is really intent on developing the political system in the country.
khairi janbek.paris/france

The King ordered the governemnt to start immediately on preparing the new elections starting with modifying the electoral law and ensuring transparency. This is very good news as the King himself is now asking for changing the law, but the issue will now be handled by the government which must prove that it has a vision for modernization and work on a politically driven election law.
As for the temprary laws I think some of them are in urgent need. The renewable energy law has been sleeping in the parliament for two years and the country is in big need to adopt this law to enhance investments in renewable energy.

Out of all the options that Dr. Lynch outlines, we should not be surprised if King Abdullah gives the first option his devoted blessing. The Jordanian parliament seems dysfunctional at best, and one of the main reasons why Jordan has not progressed socially as a country is due to the legislature's cumbersome and bureaucratic nature (sounds a bit like the United States, doesn't it?).

Of course, another part of the problem is the Jordanian legislature's unwillingness to pass significant reforms. The Jordanian economy is nowhere near its potential. Despite being one of the most beautiful and historical cities in the Islamic world, Amman is struggling to maintain its tourism industry; a sector that could potentially help the Jordanian economy in the long run. The ordinary Jordanian citizen feels marginalized out of the political process. National leaders in the parliament are anything but clean, and King Abdullah's own administration is basking in corruption.

Disregarding the legislative process may be able to temporary fix many of these issues. Reform can be accomplished if the Monarchy actually goes a step further than the traditional spew of hopeful jargon. In fact, out of all the Arab leaders in today's Middle East, King Abdullah of Jordan is perhaps the most likely to enact a certain amount of domestic change. After all, the King has been heavily influenced by western culture- the same culture that labels democracy, social development, and human rights as fundamental principles.

Of course, choosing the first option does not do much to sway international concerns over the prospects for democracy in the Middle East. Basing national policy solely through the Jordanian monarch only reinforces the belief that Arab Regimes are hostile to public participation and a governmental system of checks-and-balances. Such a decision would inevitably cause the United States some trouble as well. If Washington simply avoids the issue entirely, pretending like a legislative overhaul never happened, those Muslims who strive for free, open, and transparent politics would inevitably view the United States as a hypocritical power. Jordanians would then begin to question the sincerity of President Barack Obama's speech in Egypt last year, wondering if he is genuinely interested in mending relations with the Islamic world.

In terms of America's national-interest, a more catastrophic development would include an expansion of similar doubts across the entire Middle East. Doubts that may include the following...how can the United States speak of democracy while supporting authoritarian governments that are afraid of sacrificing power and privilege?

Many Americans may think this political event in Jordan is trivial. This should not come as a shock; Washington has often placed Jordan in a secondary position relative to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However meaningless Jordanian politics seems today, this development could quickly morph into another obstacle for the White House. If the Jordanian monarchy handles this situation poorly, President Obama may be forced to publicly respond in a forceful way.

All of the President's dreams and plans for the Middle East- not to mention the trust that most Muslims have given to the new U.S. administration- could either be strengthened or weakened as a result of King Abdullah's looming decision. Sounds unconventional? Sure, but such a prediction is not out of the mode of possibility.

It is quite amazing how a small political rift in one country can have a global effect.

http://depetris.wordpress.com

I think it is very important, to put the dismissal of parliament in the context of HM King Abdullah's recent declaration, of re-assessing Jordan's policies for the last decade.

One is not saying that Jordanians will be pulled kicking and screaming into the 21st century's civilized norms; although on a personal level I actually do not mind that, but unless the re-appraisal takes the two inter-linked points of corruption and the increased role of the security services in running the country, very seriously, then nothing much will change and Jordan will end up with the same types of officials and legislators doing the same old things.

In order to have a parliament capable of standing up against the executive's excesses and policy failures, the role of the Security establishment (General Intelligence) should be kept out from deciding who is politically loyal enough to be fit for standing for parliament. When HM the King himself is open to all ideas and political views, it cannot be logical that the security services set the tone and norm for who is loyal enough and who is not in a country whose leader has affirmed over many occasions, that Jordanians should express their views freely, and that everyone loves Jordan and is loyal to it in his/her own exegicies.

That does not mean at the same time, that the executive should be corrupt and inefficient to be chased up by the legislature, rather it should be free also from the security interference in their appointement, so that the relationship between the legislative and the executive would be based on the real matters that concern the Jordanian citizen as well as the country, rather than the constant attempts of covering up for each other's provided services , or small scale battles just to remind the public that they both exist intermittently. The watershed for both the legislature and executive, should not be based on the bevevolence of the security service for their career longivity, or covering up for each other so that they can continue to scratch each other's backs so to speak, rather, the aim should be satisfying the needs of the country and its people. If the Security apparatus determines the issue of political loyalty, then by default all other malevolent characteristics become acceptable.

Of course, there is a vetting system all over the world, in some places more discreet than others, but ultimately, the criteria for the vetting should be only consultative; not mandatory, and based on the upright citizenship of the individual rather than his/her political views. So long as the system carries on in its reliance on the secutiry services to decide who is loyal and who is not, the King will continue to having to decide on the cases of injustices brought to his attention, and the King will always be expected to decide on matters in which it only needs a few good people with integrity, within a clean parliament and clean executive to decide on, without having to trouble the King.

I know I am touching a raw subject when it comes to the security service's role in the politics of Jordan, as Jordanians usually avoid the subject publicly, but then again I have nothing to loose, been there and still carry the consequences of wearing the T-shirt.

When it comes to the current Washington administration's attitude towards Jordan, let me be clear also in this dimension. I have no intention whatsoever, in underestimating the importance of both Saudi Arabia or Egypt. The first has the size and the wealth, and the second has the size and the population, while Jordan is a small country with a small population. But with no pun intended, it is not the size than matters rather, what you do with what you have. Jordan is in in a unique geographical position with good relations with all its neighbours and beyond. It is open to the whole international community and inheritor as such of the world's major civilizations. Since its inception it has been a pluralist country and does not need a political decision for that, since pluralism is its nature. It has a leader courageous enough to experiment knowing only too well that, experimentation is the essence of the body and soul of democracy.

Consequently, Jordan has always been strong when it is pro-active, and weak when it is reactive. In this context, President Obama must soon realise, that if he really has the intention to turn around the recent set backs in his Middle East policy, he will have to rely on Jordan's strength which stems from its proactive role, and that means partnership in making Jordan the pivot of his Middle East policy. Given that the approach which he has been following did not bring anything into fruitation, and reduced Jordan to the weak point of being reactive, he can invigurate his policy once again by supporting a pro-active Jordan rather than excuse himself with a reactive Jordan.
khairi janbek.paris/france

I too received word about Jordan's parliament at MESA only a day after I presented a paper about a group of potentially reform-minded MPs and the controversial electoral system. Here are a few initial thoughts about what I think the regime does over the next year.

I agree that the initial move involves passing temporary legislation for the many important issues left on the docket. To be fair, the parliament was tasked with some pretty thorny issues to deal with during this past summer's extraordinary session such as social security and a renter's bill. I think it is important to remember that the public's perception of a lousy parliament doesn't exactly correspond with the capacity of individual legislators. Some are quite capable but face systemic constraints and are disillusioned themselves with being relegated as "service representatives."

As for the king's pledge to call new elections under a new electoral law, I think it will happen eventually and resemble your third option. The "one vote" system has become too much of an albatross for the regime even though it produces desirable results and many elites still quietly support it. Keeping with precedent, I believe the king will handpick a commission to fashion a "consensus" on a new system. What will it look like? I predict that it will incorporate more proportional elements and seek to revive political parties under the guise of liberization and pluralism. Morocco uses a List PR system that is worthy of appropriation. The new law would not be so risky for the regime because it still reinforces clientelism and inhibits opposition coordination. Since the Hamas electoral victory, I see a trend among Arab regimes (and possibly autocrats in general) away from "winner-take-all" systems. The outcome may not be as favorable for incumbents but proportional systems do tend to reduce uncertainty.

Time will tell but I think political developments over the next year will continue to be carefully orchestrated. Dissolving the parliament was another classic maneuver by the palace to stay ahead of the curve and above the fray.

Andrew Barwig

Well, I was neither at MESA nor on par to attend such important gatherings. I was at home watching the TV, when I heard the news. In any case, I must say that I was never enthusiatic about the importance of elections in Jordan; whether proportional lists, single vote, or mixed formulae or what have you, because of my long-held view unfortunately, that Jordan is not currently a finsihed project, no more than it was ever since 1921.

Now, I am not saying that, Jordan should not try to improve the laws and legislations, which govern the political participation of its people, and this is not a slur on Jordan, rather, no matter what laws and regulations governing the political life of the Jordanian people are invented, improved or modified, they shall remain by necessity of circumstances; just temporary laws.

What else can one say, when almost half of Jordan's population says "we shall return"[irrespective of whether they will or not], and the other half is saying "the country belongs to us" [irrespective of whether it does or not].
khairi janbek.paris/france

that the Jordanian government has resigned.
khairi janbek.paris/france