The Jordanian public and outside observers are buzzing with speculation about the change of government. The emerging interpretation pretty much follows what I wrote yesterday: the King was upset with the government's performance with regard to the Jordanian proposals to the Algiers Arab summitt and the "wedding celebration" crisis with Iraq, as well as with the turbulent domestic scene. The most intriguing reports, which back up my argument yesterday about royal concerns that the stalemate and conflict over domestic reform might become a complication with Washington, were these:
"We have selected you on account of your wisdom and maturity, experience and knowledge, and particularly due to your sincere belief in reform," the king said in his letter after the resignation of the 27-member Fayez government.
"We live in a turbulent region and surrounded by global conflicts," he said, but adding that "the fruits of reform will take time before they are ripe."
U.S. officials expressed their displeasure with the lack of political progress during talks last month in Washington with Abdullah, a senior official said, noting that the U.S. is one of Jordan's main financial backers.
"Jordan was a pioneer among Arab countries in the field of reform but it has been lagging behind over the past few years," a former Cabinet minister who declined to be identified told AFP.
I've heard from various sources that Rice has been rather tougher with Abdullah in private than in public, but I haven't really been sure how much credence to put in this. Maybe there's something to it... though why such private remarks wouldn't be accompanied by public remarks is unclear.
Al Hayat adds a quote from a high placed source that "internal and external factors" made it necessary to replace Fayez, who had lost credibility in dealing with reform issues, "especially in the public freedoms file." This source says that the change was "the result of the fact that Jordan had received harsh criticism from the United States" and from international human rights organizations, and said that "the previous government had put the kingdom in an unjustifiable condition of domestic congestion, after the escalating crises with the parties and associations and civil society forces, and its intense hostility towards freedom of opinion and expression, which aroused international concenrns among states allied to Jordan and raised questions among them." This fits very well with my analysis, and I hope I've played some small part in pushing that particular aspect along ;)
At any rate, what are the Jordanian papers saying about it? Or, you want to know why I say that the Jordanian press is so dismally boring and unhelpful? Well - with the exception of al Ghad - they had nothing of interest to say. Al Rai and Al Dustour (the two largest established dailies) carried the official Petra News Agency reports and bland editorials about the wisdom and vision of the king and his sincere desire for reform. Here are what al Rai's columnists though was worth writing op-eds about today, rather than the new government: "Khatami in Europe", "The Arab Human Development Report", "Complaints about "Hussam Bak"", "The Pope", "The Jordanian Role in the Middle East", "Human Development and Political Culture", "Palestine in Black and White", "The Vatican and Jerusalem", "Danger in the Dentists Association" (at least that's domestic politics!), "Israeli crimes against the Geneva Conventions", "Withdrawal?", "Development and the new political parties law". Here's al Dustour's columnists: "The battle of Abu Ghraib", "Wise Syrian steps", "The Arab situation", "Iraqi Television Programs", "America's crisis with the Arabs", "Press freedom" (by an Egyptian writer), "Jerusalem under Jewish control", "The Pope was a great man", "Will 2005 be the year of withdrawal from Iraq." The point? The columnists of the two main Jordanian newspapers, collectively, have absolutely nothing to say about the new government. Pathetic.
Al Ghad is better. First, they have some actual reporting. Adnan Badran, in an interview with the paper, said that he expects to choose his cabinet within 48 hours, that he expects to have fewer ministers than the 27 in the last government, and that there will be some holdovers. In a seperate, late-breaking story, they give a list of rumoured nominees - among the most prominent names are Basem Awadullah as deputy prime minister and Finance Minister (an important signal, given Awadullah's prominence as a powerful advocate of economic liberalization), Marwan Dawdin as deputy prime minister and Minister of State for Prime Minister Affairs (a prominent Palestinian-origin liberal with long experience in various governments), and Majid Habashneh as Minister of Labor (don't know anything about him, but could be a way to keep that tribe happy while dumping Samir Habashneh, the controversial Interior Minister). Not clear whether this is an official list or just an office pool.
The paper interprets the prominent position for Marwan Muasher to oversee the reform agenda as suggesting that the King wants to directly oversee the reform process and give it a high priority. Muasher is highly respected in Washington, which can't hurt. But it's also worth noting that pretty much every new Jordanian government appointed in the last 15 years has been given the mandate of "accelerating and deepening reforms", so we'll just have to wait and see.
Meanwhile, al Ghad reports that there is some controversy in Parliament as to the constitutionality of a vote of confidence for the new Prime Minister during an extraordinary session. Islamist MP Zuhair Abu al Raghib told al Ghad that it was unconstitutional to hold any confidence vote outside of the Parliament's regular session. The Parliament is currently in extraordinary session to discuss a series of important laws; a regular session would not be until October. He pointed to the precedent of Tahir al Masri's government (1993?), as well as the constitutional text. The text does seem to be on his side, but somehow I don't think this will derail the king's choice.
Other members of Parliament, according to al Ghad, are demanding a more democratic and popular government which better represents the people. They are unhappy that the King changed the governments "with no consultation with the Parliament until the very last minute." MP Mamdouh al Abbadi is quoted as saying that "the Members of Parliament were just as surprised by the governmental change as any other citizen," and complained that this was not an auspicious sign for the democratic or popular nature of the new government. Former speaker of the Parliament Saad Hayl al Sarour said that "we would hope that any government would take into account the mistakes made by the previous government in its relations with all parts of society, including Parliament and civil society." The head of the Foreign Affairs committee in Parliament Mohammed Abu Hadib urged the new government to "quicken the process of political and economic reforms."
Want to know how cynical these Jordanians have become about the political system? Centrist MP Abd al Rahim Milhas just said that "the previous government was no different from others... all of them are only servants implementing orders and trying to satisfy public relations." Columnist Samih al Mayateh has this to say: "The real value of any change of government is that it allows citizens.. to feel real optimism about the possibility of changing things in a positive direction, and gives the citizen the chance to feel that the coming things deserve close attention, and that it deserves a chance to work before being judged... The problem with the governments coming and departing over the decades is that they have lost the ability to suprise Jordanians, not because citizens are pessimistic or negativist, but because the long decades of experience have confirmed that changes and movements don't amount to much in influencing the core concerns, that Fulan (a generic somebody) goes from this chair to a different chair... but nothing fundamental changes." He hopes that this new government will defy expectations and actually surprise Jordanian citizens... but he doesn't sound optimistic.
Three other al Ghad columnists talk about the new government, as well, but I don't have time to say much about them - suffice it to say that all three want to see real change and aren't convinced that they are going to.
UPDATE: Still wondering about the American position on these changes? Well, keep wondering. The April 6 State Department Daily Press Briefing, like the April 5 Briefing, came and went without the mention of the word "Jordan."
Comments