Jordan's Municipal Elections: A Failed Opportunity

In Jordan, elections have historically been a carefully orchestrated charade. However, this latest round of voting was touted by the country’s ruling elite as something new: it was to be a bold step towards a fairer, more democratic process. In effect, it was held up as an example of what was going to be, well, real elections.

Some analysts had high hopes that this last election would indeed be one of the country’s freest and fairest. Indeed, there was reason to be optimistic. For the first time, Jordanians would have the right to elect every member of local municipal councils. Previously, in an obvious attempt to place his supporters in positions of power, Jordan’s King Abdullah had personally chosen about half of these officials. But, under a new law, last week’s election was supposed to be different. Islamists, seculars, liberals, and all the other groups were to be allowed to run and be elected on their own merits, without the interference of the monarchy.

A DISAPPOINTING OUTCOME, A FAILED OPPORTUNITY
Unfortunately, the elections were a profound disappointment. The largest opposition party – an Islamist group known as the Islamic Action Front (IAF)– pulled out of the elections at the last minute, claiming that the government had rigged the election and hired thugs to intimidate voters. Their withdrawal cast a long shadow on the legitimacy of the election.

The validity of their claims is unverified but, given the regime’s poor human rights record and its questionable commitment to democracy, the allegations may well have some truth to them. For years, the Jordanian monarchy has been worried that democratic elections will lead to the rise of the IAF, the main Islamist party whose vision for the country is much different than those of the ruling elites. To avoid this outcome, the government has used a system of gerrymandering (think Tom Delay’s handywork in Texas and you’ll start getting the idea) to diminish the influence of the Islamist party. Nevertheless, in the last parliamentary elections, the IAF was still able to win a plurality of seats in parliament.

In this recent election, it seemed likely that the Islamist party would pick up a good number of local seats. With a strong base of support stemming from the country’s Palestinian population (an astounding 60%), fairer elections were likely to bring further gains for the IAF. Undoubtedly, the Jordanian monarchy was worried about such an outcome.

THE DEMOCRACY DILEMMA
Whether or not the Jordanian regime actually carried out acts of anti-democratic repression will never be known for sure. Unfortunately, the Bush administration didn’t seem to care either way. Worried that a more representative system of government in Jordan would lead to the rise of the Islamist IAF party, American officials stayed silent, refusing to condemn or investigate the country’s backslide away from democracy.

This is the old dilemma for the Bush administration. Do they push for democracy if it means the rise of Islamist parties? Or do they support pro-Western autocrats? Unfortunately, administration officials have largely concluded that promoting democracy is a dangerous strategy with unpredictable results. Propping up Western-leaning dictatorships (a policy reminiscent of the Cold War) is the only way to ensure America’s security and protect its interests in the region, they believe.

DEMOCRACY PROMOTION IS SMART POLICY
But their conclusions are misplaced. Failing to push for democracy in the region out of a fear of Islamist parties is not likely to serve American interests in the long-run. Although significant gains for Islamist groups would be the likely result of most free elections in the region, this is not necessarily an outcome to be feared. On the contrary, enabling moderate Islamist groups to take part in the political process can be conducive to American efforts against terrorism. Because moderate Islamist parties like Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Jordan’s IAF have rejected violence and embraced democracy, these groups often act as an effective bulwark against the message of more radical organizations like al-Qaeda.

With vast networks of sports clubs, mosques, and social service organizations, moderate Islamist organizations have a great ability (which they often exercise) to discourage Muslims from getting involved in terrorism. As the analysts Steven Brooke and Robert Leiken have pointed out, Islamist groups can have the effect of “dissuad[ing] Muslims from violence, [and] instead channeling them into politics and charitable activities."

Furthermore, although supporting pro-Western autocrats may appear to be a smart move, such a strategy will only lead to greater radicalism. Indeed, according to a study by Princeton economist Alan Krueger, authoritarian countries are significantly more likely to become a breeding ground for terrorists. In contrast, democracies discourage violent extremism by providing an outlet for people to express their grievances in a peaceful way. It is clear that without functioning democratic systems in the region, radicalism and anti-American sentiment will continue to grow.

Finally, the Bush administration has a moral obligation to promote democracy in the region. Although Islamist groups like the IAF have views that most Americans would find to be objectionable, these organizations do have a right to be involved in the political process. Indeed, the IAF has rejected violence and committed itself to the democratic process. Assuming that the party remains committed to these two principles, there is little justification for refusing to allow them to play a role in policy-making.

ANOTHER CHANCE
The failure of administration officials to be outspoken on behalf of fair elections in Jordan last week will have dangerous long-term effects. By denying Jordanians a voice in their political process, the way has been paved for a disgruntled few to air their grievances through more violent methods.

Thankfully, the Bush administration has another chance to push for a more democratic system in Jordan. In November, in an election that is deemed to be much more important than last week’s municipal poll, the country will vote for parliamentarians. American officials should put pressure on the Jordanian monarchy to hold fair elections that do not inhibit the rise of the IAF or other opposition parties. Such a policy, in the long-term, would be conducive to American interests and in sync with our values as a nation.

I won’t be holding my breath though.