Ola Thiabat, who ran for election to Jordan’s parliament in January, told the Jordan Times that her husband’s family forced him to end their marriage because of her campaign. “When I first decided to run for the parliament, he supported me and paid all my expenses, until his family asked him to persuade me to withdraw from the elections for the benefit of one of their relatives; when I refused to comply, he divorced me” said Thiabat. Thiabat is one of 215 women out of 1425 candidates who ran for election in Jordan. Many Jordanian politicians are building their hopes on the new parliament that emerged from these elections. In a departure from tradition, the plan is to form a parliamentary government, with the new prime minister announced after consultation with the majority coalition of parliamentary blocs. If no clear majority coalition emerges in the new parliament, the designation will be based upon consultation with all parliamentary blocs. A few days before the elections, King Abdullah presented to the Jordanians his vision of the Kingdom’s reform process. In his ‘road map to democratic transformation’, King Abdullah stated three conditions that must be developed to ensure a full parliamentary government’s continued expertise and effectiveness. He noted, “First we will need to see the emergence of true national parties that aggregate specific and local interests into a national platform for action. Second, our civil service will need further to develop its professional, impartial non-political abilities to support and advice the ministers of parliamentary government. The third condition is a change in parliamentary conventions, the way parliament works, to support parliamentary government.” Despite the King’s promises, some of the opposition parties went ahead with their boycott of the elections. The Islamic Action Front (IAF), the Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm, has organised rallies in the capital and other cities calling on people not to participate in the “cosmetic” elections. The IAF, Jordan’s largest opposition group, objects to the new election law approved by the parliament last year. The law is based on the so-called ‘one man, two votes’ electoral system. Under the new law, one of the two votes is for a district representative and the other for national-level lists that include political parties. Critics say the one man, two votes formula was introduced by the government to “favour government loyalists and to limit the Islamist influence.” However, despite the brotherhood’s calls to boycott the elections, the total voter turnout in January’s elections was 56.69 per cent of the registered voters. Many of the 150 MPs who reached the parliament are independent candidates dependent on their clans’ support to win their seats. But Islamic Centrist Party (ICP) gained 16 seats and claimed to have the largest parliamentary bloc yet to emerge. Due to the brotherhoods boycott, ICP had become a key player in Jordan’s internal politics. Based on the King’s reform plan, if ICP manages to form a majority coalition with other parliamentary blocs, they will have the chance to name the next prime minister. Forming a parliamentary government is seen by many Jordanian politicians as an important step forward towards building a democratic system. However, there are major challenges facing the Kingdom in building its democracy. Apart from the political reforms, changing the political culture and traditions are still seen as major challenges. In the latest election, 18 women only were able to get seats in the parliament, 15 of whom won their seats based on the women quota. Ms Thiabat is not among the 18 women MPs. Perhaps, missing her husband and his clan’s support, had affected Ms Thiabat chances in making her way to the parliament.
Global Partners Tags
Tag Archives: Representation
News: Political Parties in Democratic Transitions – the challenge for Egypt
Political Parties in Democratic Transitions, edited by Greg Power and Rebecca Shoot, and published by the Danish Institute for Parties and Democracy was launched in Copenhagen at the end of September. The event brought together journalists, politicians, academics and international assistance organisations to reflect on the challenges for political parties in Egypt. The publication looks at the experience of new parties in Turkey, Serbia, Indonesia and South Africa and their role in fostering multi-party dialogue, negotiating the withdrawal of the military from politics and convincing the public that their new democracy works. The speakers – who included Ahsraf Khalil from Time magazine and Noha El-Mikhawy from the Ford Foundation, as well as Greg Power - highlighted the current complexities of Egyptian politics, the proliferation of new parties and the uncertainties of the constitutional process. In particular they discussed the dominance of political Islam, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood’s governing strategy, their relationship with the Salafi Al-Nour party, and the prospects for the parliamentary elections due in the next few months. But they also commented on the inadequacy of the electoral and political system – the run-off between Morsi and Shafiq resulted in a ‘missing 40%’ of voters who have not yet found a secure home with any of the political parties and whose future decisions will be crucial to determining the make-up of the next Egyptian parliament. As well as working with DIPD, Global Partners has been partnering Egypt’s political parties since summer 2011 to develop the role of political parties in parliament and principles for parliamentary development.
Opinion: Optimism in a difficult climate – Archy Kirkwood
Elected politicians from mature democracies should be required to spend at least a week of every year working alongside their peers in newly established representative institutions in other parts of the world. You learn how much context matters. Even after a long spell in both the elected and revising chambers in the United Kingdom I am constantly amazed by the fortitude and determination shown by public representatives who daily face impossible odds and personal risks in the service of their parliaments in other parts of the world. Over the last few months I have closely observed the experience of Mr Yonadam Kanna, the recently created Chair of the CoR Labour and Social affairs Committee as he and his committee have struggled to create an effective parliamentary committee from scratch since the last election in Iraq. I chaired the equivalent committee in the House of Commons between 1992 and 2001, but had MPs with years of political and social policy experience, a group of expert staff and advisers, and an established body of work inherited from my distinguished predecessor. Yonadam Kanna had only one member of staff and an entirely new committee. He did not even have an office in the parliamentary building from which to work. In addition, the committee chair has numerous other duties in Iraq’s complex political jigsaw - as a senior figure in the parliamentary Christian bloc he is regularly expected to represent their interests in different forums. Short of time and short of support, it is difficult to overstate the size of the tasks facing the committee. As well as coping with the volume of new legislation being pushed through for scrutiny and dealing with the concerns of individual voters, the MPs are also attempting to patch up a system based on laws from Saddam Hussein’s rule. But the bigger job of devising a new and coherent social support network for Iraq’s citizens lies at the heart of their work. During our last visit to Baghdad the political classes were understandably absorbed by the failed “no confidence” motion in Prime Minster Maliki. Yonadam Kanna cleverly diffused the palpable tension surrounding the aftermath of the failed political assault by proudly showing a neatly framed image of his two grandsons squabbling over a piece of cake. Everyone laughed – but he made his point! To any outside casual observer, our Iraqi friends face overwhelming political challenges on all fronts. But at a traditionally generous lunch hosted by the committee in July, one of its members, Mr Kazim Al-Shimary, remarked that a recent official committee visit to the UK had persuaded him how national solidarity could be achieved through state investment in social protection. And, with some certainty, stated that he was determined to use his time on the committee to establish such a system up in Iraq. It is impossible not to be impressed by that level of resilience and ambition. Outcomes matter. Even if the political context is inauspicious, solutions must come from within. In politics, change cannot be implemented from the outside, no matter how well-meaning such international efforts might be. We can only help to support the process. But the likelihood of meaningful reform ultimately stems from the kind of optimism and resilience shown by Yonadam Kanna and his colleagues on the Social and Labour affairs committee in Iraq.
Letter from Baghdad
“Habibi, can I smoke here?” None of us knew the answer to the old woman’s question. Unlike most of Western Europe, certain countries in the Middle East seem to positively encourage smoking indoors. We didn’t know the view of Baghdad airport. One of us turned to an airport official, sitting idly outside one of the many single-room offices in the building to check. “It’s illegal, but you can do it if you’re discreet.” The woman’s family suggested she go and smoke in the toilet. She declined, but the conversation then turned to morality - not of whether it was right to break the rules, but whether smoking was morally acceptable. The general conclusion seemed to be that it was - and in that case the formal airport rules were largely irrelevant. Its this sort of logic that is informing much of Iraqi politics at the moment. In the absence of norms and precedents, the early years of any new democratic politics are always characterised by a fight over how the rules should be interpreted. Argument tends to revolve around what’s right, rather than by what the constitution says. With all sides claiming that their version of the truth is the definitive one. With no common agreement about what the Iraqi constitution means, Prime Minister, parliament and ministries have been engaged in a relentless series of tussles about the respective powers of their institutions in recent months. In parliament, Speaker Nujaifi is pushing parliament’s prerogatives to call ministers in to be questioned. Individual ministries are resisting. One committee’s attempt to conduct a ministerial hearing resulted in the minister storming out, telling the committee that he had come to tell them how to do their job, not to be asked questions. In May the Supreme Court weighed in, with a ruling that in order to question any minister, parliament needed evidence that the minister had breached the constitution. Turning the logic of parliamentary scrutiny on its head, the decision means that parliament is unable to ask ministers for information about their work - only to accuse them of constitutional violations once they have evidence. This battle widened during the spring into an attempt to remove Prime Minister Maliki, with opposition parties trying to find enough MPs to force a vote of no confidence. In retaliation, MPs loyal to the PM have sought to find ways of removing Speaker Nujaifi, and the Prime Minister has talked about forcing early elections. None of this seems likely to happen in the near future, but the political scuffles seems set to continue, with both sides trying to make life as difficult as possible for the other. Perhaps the most farcical skirmish in this battle came at the end of June when, apparently at Maliki’s behest, the blast walls protecting parliament were removed, thus exposing the building to direct attack from the Red Zone. With impeccable timing this was one day before parliament was due to return after a month’s recess – and attempt to unseat the PM. In the event, parliament had another three days off, much to the delight of many staff, before the walls were put back up - with the security measures around the parliament tighter than they were beforehand. Although the tone of politics may seem petty and counterproductive, there are significant political issues at stake. The way the constitution and parliamentary procedures are interpreted now, will shape how Iraqi politics works for some time to come. Once precedents are laid, they are very difficult to pull up. All sides realise the importance of determining how government works in practice. It is a battle over how power is exercised, and by whom. The process may be messy, but it is inevitable. All mature democracies went through similar phases, often over decades. One story from the US Congress in the nineteenth century describes how the Speaker was punched by one member, guns were drawn and the plenary session degenerated into a free-for-all brawl. By comparison with Western Europe and North America, Iraq’s attempts to establish democratic processes are remarkably swift. Patterns will establish themselves, but until they do, argument is likely to be characterised by emotion and different views of what’s right, rather than rules. Back at the airport, a different official provides us with another metaphor for Iraq’s politics. Asked why one passenger was being ushered to the front of the static and seemingly endless check-in queues, he responded with a blank look and drily stated, “Aku Asbaab.” That is, simply, “there are reasons”. Its difficult to argue with that sort of logic.