Introduction
In recent months, King ‘Abdallah II of Jordan has been facing growing criticism within the country and calls to limit his powers, from both popular elements and political circles. On October 6, 2018, the “National Follow-Up Committee,” a group of 143 politicians and military veterans, issued a statement in which they harshly protested what they called the dire condition of the country, the king’s disregard of demands for reform, and the abuse of the powers conferred upon the king and his court, and called to curtail these powers. Since its initial release, the statement has been signed by over 1,000 people.
The wave of criticism has been growing since the unrest in the spring of 2018 protesting the dire economic situation in Jordan. These protests included strikes and mass demonstrations throughout the kingdom at which calls against the king were occasionally heard, holding him responsible for the crisis. Even after these protests died down and a new government was formed in June 2018, calls for reform and in particular for limiting the king’s powers persisted, voiced by social media users and small grassroots protest movements, but also by members of parliament. For example, a parliamentary faction comprising mainly of Muslim Brotherhood (MB) members demanded the transfer of some of the King’s powers to the government. In addition, two MPs criticized Queen Rania’s intervention in matters of state, saying she has no authority to do so. The tense atmosphere was exacerbated by the king’s long and unexplained absence from Jordan in July 2018, which sparked criticism on social media and malicious rumors that he is in ill health or has changed his position on the Palestinian issue.
King ‘Abdallah tried to rebuff the criticism. Implicitly alluding to the Follow-Up Committee’s statement, he admitted that mistakes had been made and that the dissatisfaction among the citizens reflected their waning confidence in the state institutions, but called to focus on the kingdom’s achievements and to channel the dissatisfaction toward improving the situation. On several occasions he also denied the rumors that had been spread about him. The Jordanian press also rallied to the King’s defense. Writers, especially in the government daily Al-Rai, rejected the calls to limit the King’s powers and condemned those who spread the rumors, accusing them of attempting to destabilize the country.
In the past two weeks, protests over the government’s economic policy were renewed, including demonstrations in central Amman, for instance on November 30 and December 6. The demonstrators cried out against the corruption and stifling of free speech in the country, and also voiced criticism of the king and called for the establishment of a constitutional monarchy. It should be noted that the direct criticism of the King voiced in recent months echoes the demands made in 2011 for comprehensive political reforms, the curtailing of the King’s authority and the establishment of a constitutional monarchy in Jordan.
It cannot be ruled out that ‘Abdallah’s October 2018 decision regarding the peace treaty with Israel – namely the decision not to renew annexes to the peace treaty leasing two enclaves of land to Israel – was an attempt to quell the anger against him, especially since this was one of the demands made in the Follow-Up Committee’s statement.
This report reviews the criticism directed at King ‘Abdallah over the past few months as well as the calls to limit his powers, and the reactions to these calls.
The National Follow-Up Committee’s Statement Calls To Limit The King’s Powers: The King’s Powers Have Been Abused; Jordan Is Not Anyone’s Private Estate
As noted, the statement released by the National Follow-Up Committee on October 6 protests the dire situation in the country and the king’s disregard of the repeated calls for reform, and accuses him and his court of abusing their powers. Originally signed by 143 people, among them former MP and labor minister Amjad Al-Majali and the former general guide of the MB in Jordan, Salam Al-Falahat, it also states that Jordan is not anyone’s “private estate” and calls to take a number of measures to limit the king’s powers. Since its release the statement has been signed by over 1,000 people.
The statement says: “Our country is experiencing very complicated political, economic and social conditions… The appeals by the vast majority of the people, from all sectors, to enact a genuine reform in all areas… have not met with an adequate response but have been ignored, while the situation in the country continues to deteriorate more and more. The 2014 constitutional amendments gave the King additional absolute powers, which he delegated to others, and they abused them. This led to the deepening of corruption, which has become open and widespread, while no means are available to monitor it or hold [the culprits] to account. The royal court and the centers of power have been filled to excess with thousands of civil servants and have become an authority above all others, contrary to the Constitution. This has dangerous and devastating implications for Jordan’s present and future…
“[Yet] despite the public rage, which has steadily mounted over the past years, the king’s response was limited to empty and ineffective formalities and unfulfilled promises, intended to distract the people from the frequent corruption scandals and the autocratic character of the regime.
The National Follow-Up Committee’s statement (image: Twitter.com/7iber, October 20, 2018)
“We therefore declare that this stage has reached an impasse and must end, and that a new phase must begin, devoted to a national project with clear objectives and means, based on a number of clear national principles, including [the following]: Jordan is a cherished sovereign country, not a private estate managed according to the interest and will of the king or anyone else. The people are the source of authority, as stated in the Constitution, and therefore it is the people who vest the executive branch with powers through free and fair general elections. As such, the people are the sole source of legitimacy. According to the Constitution of Jordan, the regime is parliamentary, with hereditary monarchic rule. This is a clear reference to the model of a democratic monarchic-parliamentary rule. The Jordanian people will by no means agree to continue living under an absolute monarchy, against their will and in violation of the Constitution.”
The statement also protests the centrality of the royal court in Jordan’s decision-making processes: “The royal court has no constitutional status that invests it with executive authority, but at present its authority supersedes that of all [other] state institutions – the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government – in violation of the Constitution. In order to rectify this and reinstate the rule of law and of the state institutions, there must be an end to these violations and to the intervention of the royal court in the state institutions, and to the mixing of their authorities.”
The statement calls to take the following measures in order to curtail the king’s authority: “The king’s departure from the country, for any reason, will be with the approval of the government, and the approval will specify the destination of the [foreign] visit, its duration, its objectives and its cost. The king’s deputy will be sworn-in in the presence of the government. The king and his family shall be allotted a specific salary and their expenses shall be regulated by a special law, and subject to all taxes imposed on [other] Jordanian citizens.” The statement also implicitly criticizes the concentration of security powers in the hands of the king: “The armed forces and the security services… should be branches of the government, which is the general authority in the state and is responsible for all its mechanisms…”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.