Hybrid Democracy, Social Structure and Democratization in Jordan – the 2010 National Elections

Vol. 1(3), pp. 117-128, November 2013 DOI: 10.14662/IJPSD2013.011 International Journal of Political Copy©right2014 Science and Development Author(s) retain the copyright of this article © 2013 Academic Research Journals http://www.academicresearchjournals.org/IJPSD/Index.html Review Hybrid Democracy, Social Structure and Democratization in Jordan – The 2010 National Elections As'ad Ghanem School of Political Sciences, University of Haifa, Isreal. Email: [email protected]. Fax & Tel: xx972-4-9886040 Accepted 5 November, 2013 The Jordanian case represents the duality of the effectiveness of the political process as a result of the procedural elections. On one hand, the electoral process – despite its limitations – promises future possibilities. On the other hand, holding democratic processes under conditions in which the concept of citizenship has yet to mature finds certain sectors and leaderships resorting to primordial identities – on the expense of the joint citizenship - as part of the selection process during the elections. During the last decades, basic contradiction between democratic and anti-democratic characteristics has shaped the Jordanian public sphere. The uniqueness of the ”democratic incentives" and concomitant changes in various domains exist simultaneously with gradually intensifying anti-democratic regime responses that have the effect of immobilizing or freezing the political structure of the regime. Key words: Jordan; Elections; Middle East; Arab World; Moslem Brotherhood. INTRODUCTION Events in the Arab World, at least most Arab states, in of the changes that occurred in the Hashemite Kingdom the first half of 2011 indicate there is vibrant political of Jordan. More specifically, the reference is to the activism in these societies. This activism is not a product question of political representation following the of sudden unforeseen changes. Instead, this activism is a parliamentary elections – November 2010. These product of cumulative events in various Arab societies on elections were not a mere distraction orchestrated by the an unprecedented scale. It is difficult to point to one opposition to the detriment of the monarchy and the king. aspect of political developments that led millions to take They originated as part of a change in the structure of to the street demanding the ouster of regimes and the governance, its elements and the processes of establishment of a democratic rule (POMEPS, 2012; harmonizing its structure with the demands of democratic Gause, 2011) openness. Undoubtedly, this agitation for change occurred within different contexts, as part of different conditions between one state and the other, despite similarities between the Theoritical Context – Hybrid Democracy, Social demands and the slogans, as well as some of the living Context and the Limitation of Democratization conditions. For example, it will be difficult to use similar Process methods to explain grievances in monarchical and republican systems given the varying degrees of The rapid political changes in several Arab states can be authoritarian approaches. Thus, one must examine these understood by application and extension of the analytic cases as a whole, and later partition said cases in order framework inherent in the concept of ―hybrid democracy.‖ to understand better the underlying developments. Hybrid democracies have been defined as ‗ambiguous In this article I attempt to understand a particular aspect systems that combine rhetorical acceptance of Inter. J. Polit. Sci. Develop. 118 democracy, the existence of some formal democratic ambiguous systems that combine rhetorical acceptance institutions and respect for a limited sphere of civil and of democracy, the existence of some formal democratic political liberties with essentially illiberal or even institutions, and respect for a limited sphere of civil and authoritarian traits‘ (Ottaway, 2003). The term ―electoral political liberties with essentially illiberal, or even authoritarianism‖ is sometimes used to describe the type authoritarian traits, the democratization processes have of hybrid democracy in which regimes have responded to been used to control the system, rather than to unprecedented pressure, international and domestic, to authentically reform or replace the authoritarian regime. adopt—or at least to mimic—the democratic form (Diamond, 2002: p. 23). Virtually all hybrid regimes in the world today are quite Dissolution of the Fifteenth House of Representatives deliberately pseudo democratic, in that ―the existence of formally democratic political institutions, such as On 24 November 2009,1 the king issued an order to multiparty electoral competition, masks (often, in part, to dissolve the 15th House of Representatives and conduct legitimate) the reality of authoritarian domination. All such an ―early‖2 election. The king did not provide any regimes lack an arena of contestation sufficiently open, explanation for the dissolution of the House of free, and fair so that the ruling party can readily be turned Representatives. In fact, the constitution grants the king out of power if it is no longer preferred by a plurality of the full power to dissolve the House of Representatives electorate. While an opposition victory is not impossible without providing an explanation (Article 34). In addition, in a hybrid regime, it requires a level of opposition under the constitution, the king is not obligated to provide mobilization, unity, skill, and heroism far beyond what an explicit explanation for such action, although implicitly would normally be required for victory in a democracy‖ according to Article 34 of the constitution, the government (Diamond, 2002, 23-24). In other words, authoritarian has some responsibility. Article 74 states, ―If the House of regimes often use democratization processes to control Representatives has been dissolved for any reason, the the political system, rather than to move away from new House of Representatives cannot be dissolved for authoritarianism (Menocal, et al, 2007) the same reason.‖ The prevailing concept of hybrid democracy suggests Many political party members in Jordan welcomed the that regimes often initiate certain features of democracy dissolution of parliament. They were certain that a while simultaneously attempting to manipulate these dissolved House of Representatives would not have democratic processes in order to ensure that the regime brought about a fair election otherwise. In addition, survives the limited changes and continues to exert opposition parties argued that the dissolved parliament control over the political system. In this article we provided personal privileges such as exemptions from mentain that the expansion of this concept of hybrid import tax, including monthly financial incentives democracy. Specifically, I contend that hybrid equivalent to their monthly wages to cover the expenses democracies stemming from different authoritarian of their political activities3. Other groups in Jordanian orientations constitute much wider phenomena than society attributed the dissolution to the government‘s those that are initiated by the regime or the state. In other desire to issue new economic laws – taking advantage of words, the level of the democratization processes an inactive parliament – as was the case when the associated with a hybrid democracy might be a reflection government postponed the elections following the of a wider social structure within the society n adition to dissolution of parliament in 2001. Then, the government the political structure and the balace of power in the passed more than 200 temporary laws in the absence of political sphere (Ghanem, 2012). an active parliament4. The transformations of the political sphere in Jordan This diligence would seem reasonable if one left aside during the last decades are a reflection of a political, the government‘s dissolution of parliament and its social, and cultural developments that have been postponement of the elections for a year. Yet, the same occurring for several decades. During these decades, government had issued 48 temporary laws5, most of basic contradiction between democratic and anti- which had no constitutional backing. The Jordanian democratic characteristics has shaped the Jordanian Popular Unity Party believed that one of the reasons for public sphere. The uniqueness of the ‖democratic the dissolution of parliament was the government‘s desire incentives" and concomitant changes in various domains to issue temporary laws. In the Central Committee‘s exist simultaneously with gradually intensifying anti- communiqué to boycott the elections it stated, ―Dissolving democratic regime responses that have the effect of the 15th House of Representatives was the result of immobilizing or freezing the political structure of the fraudulent elections in 2007, as was evident from regime. statements made by officials in positions of authority in A local version of "hybrid democracy," and the gradual the executive branch‖. The communiqué added that, democratization process raised hope among the public ―Parliament‘s dissolution was justified due to its ill and the elites that an age of democracy was imminent. performance. It did not meet expectations. Later, [the real However, hybrid democracy in Jordan has consisted of reasons were] that the current government‘s intention to Ghanem 119 dissolving parliament was to pass temporary laws, chief exclusive electoral lists, the media named such districts, among them was the Budgetary

Load more