Many Disillusioned by Jordan’s ‘Democracy’

Ali abu Sakur seems like a man who should be enjoying the fruits of democracy.

In elections last month, the parliament member trounced his opponents. His party and its allies control about a fifth of the votes in the lower house. His party headquarters -- a two-story building of tan brick covered in political posters and filled with activists -- would fit neatly into any American electoral ward.

But behind Jordan’s democratic veneer are developments that trouble Sakur deeply. While the nation is often hailed as a bright spot for democracy in the Middle East, the members of parliament’s upper house are still appointed by the king, Abdullah II. Electoral districts are proportioned so that power flows to the monarchy’s supporters. Only four years ago, the king suspended elections and issued laws by decree.

Such circumstances have disappointed many Jordanians. Without real progress toward full democracy, Sakur fears the public will grow frustrated and embrace alternatives, such as Islamic rule.

“There has been a retreat in the democratic process here in Jordan. There have been abuses by the executive power,” said Sakur, the leader of the country’s main Islamic party, a moderate group that is focused on creating jobs and combating corruption. “They don’t realize the danger in playing around with democracy is that it will give birth to a climate that could lead to extremism.”

Sakur’s fears are echoed throughout the region. As the United States struggles to cultivate democracy in Iraq, it has no real models in the Arab world to work with. And the few countries that have implemented limited democratic reforms have produced voters who are disillusioned about the lack of real political change -- and are looking for alternatives.

Recent parliamentary elections in Kuwait, for instance, saw the expulsion of Western-oriented reformists in favor of Islamic fundamentalists and politicians closely allied with the monarchy.

Experts say the disappointment comes because democratic initiatives in places such as Jordan, Kuwait and Morocco have been halfhearted. Press freedom remains restricted. Political dissent is tolerated in limited doses, and opposition, where it exists, is weak. Instead of a voice in government, Arab voters get systems that appear democratic but offer little power to ordinary citizens.

In Kuwait, women are not allowed to vote or run for office. In Morocco, the king retains the power to dismiss ministers and call new elections.

In Jordan, activists and analysts say there is democracy in name only. “We don’t have a democracy, and anybody who says so is a liar,” said Laith Shubeilat, a popular Islamic leader who refuses to participate in elections because he believes the system is a sham. Islamists boycotted the last parliamentary elections in 1997.

Few countries in the Arab world would seem better prepared for a democratic system than this small kingdom sandwiched between Israel and Iraq. Many of Jordan’s leaders, including the king himself, are fluent in English, educated in the United States or Europe and familiar with the workings of Western-style democracy.

The capital, Amman, is a modern place in many respects. Women in tight tops and high heels click across marble floors in posh hotels. Alcohol flows freely in bars and pubs.

The country is one of the most pro-Western and economically open in the region. It is a member of the World Trade Organization and a devoted practitioner of economic prescriptions handed down by the International Monetary Fund.

And, unlike in some Arab nations where Islamic political parties advocate a strict unity of government and religion, Jordan’s main Islamic party, the Islamic Action Front, is moderate. There seems little danger of electing a government that would install a theocracy.

“We see Jordan as an example of how well an economic and political opening can work in the Middle East,” said a Western diplomat here.

Despite this fertile ground, critics say Jordan’s democracy remains stunted, serving as much as a warning to those interested in fostering a democratic system as an example.

The parliament itself has few powers. While the full body can override the king’s veto with a two-thirds vote, that hasn’t happened in recent memory.

In the last several years, as public displeasure with the monarchy has grown -- particularly over its relationships with the United States and Israel -- freedoms have been curtailed.

After coming to power in 1999 following the death of his father, King Hussein, Abdullah repeatedly suspended parliamentary elections, issuing more than 130 laws by decree until deciding to permit voting in June.

He argued that protests over the treatment of Palestinians in Israel and the U.S. invasion of Iraq made elections impossible.

“Difficult regional circumstances dictated that we postpone these elections, if only for a while,” Abdullah said last August. “Our wish for these elections to be free and fair, and unaffected by regional influences and circumstances, left us no choice but to postpone them.”

Abdullah has been limiting public participation in other ways as well. Several political opponents of the regime have been jailed. In March 2002, a former parliament member was arrested after accusing the prime minister of corruption. In October, three members of a group protesting normalized relations with Israel were arrested, and the prime minister later outlawed the group.

Perhaps most alarming, the electoral system has been altered by the king and parliament to favor the king’s allies among Jordan’s mostly rural tribal population and prevent his opponents -- mostly from Islamic groups -- from taking control of the lower house.

For instance, the size of electoral districts is not proportional to their participation. A district covering an area with more than 200,000 nationalized Palestinian refugees has a single representative -- the same as a remote tribal area with 6,000 people.

The result has been widespread disenchantment with the process, especially among elites and the middle class, many of whom see elections as little more than a system of handing out government contracts to buy the cooperation of Islamists and tribal leaders.

Amid widespread complaints about the system, turnout in Jordan’s recent voting was about 50% -- roughly equal to that of recent U.S. elections but far below the typical turnout in most European and Latin American democracies.

Political analysts also have expressed doubts that the monarchy is committed to ushering in a full democracy.

“What the monarchy wants to do is have all the trappings of a working, functioning democracy,” said Scott Greenwood, a specialist in Jordanian politics at Cal State San Marcos. “They want a loyal opposition that won’t undermine the policies that the monarchy deems necessary.”

Jordan’s leaders acknowledge that their country has fallen short but say it is slowly moving in the right direction. They argue that Jordan needs time to develop political parties, a civil society and independent media.

“The king is acting like a CEO. He is running this country with an objective: an open, democratic civil society that will modernize,” said Planning Minister Bassam Awadallah.

“It’s not a democracy. It’s a democratizing country,” Awadallah said. “We have a process that is going on. It’s not a switch-on, switch-off button.”

Jordan’s track record, analysts say, makes it clear that the U.S. has major obstacles to overcome if it is to make Iraq into a democracy. While there is no king to put the breaks on reform, Iraq also lacks all of Jordan’s political strengths.

In Iraq, there is no economic or political stability, nor a history of close links to the West. There is no shortage of people agitating for Islamic rule.

Some U.S. officials have argued that a democratic transition in Iraq may push other countries toward more openness. But observers say anything short of that will create more frustration in a region already filled with disappointment.

“Arabs don’t believe the U.S. They believe the [U.S.] will accept less than a real democracy -- a formulistic, sham democracy, which is very dangerous,” said Adnan abu Odeh, a former Jordanian ambassador to the United Nations. “People in the Arab world are not cultured about democracy. They need a lot of work. But the important thing is to start.”

Correspondent Jailan Zayan contributed to this report.