The legal framework for elections may surely be measured against international standards but must always also be referenced by the national context. On the road to democratization, whether reform is substantial or rapid enough will often be assessed differently as influenced by the vantage point of the observer. Reform is often achieved through the interaction of the main stakeholders, each striving for its interests. Electoral reform in Jordan is an interesting case study in this regard.

Jordan is a constitutional monarchy, with the government consisting of Chief of State (the King), the executive comprised of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, and the legislative National Assembly with two chambers: the House of Deputies and the Senate.[i] 

The nature of the electoral law in Jordan has been a major point of contention among political factions and this has only increased and become more public in the time since the emergence of the Arab Spring. Of course, the electoral system is only one of several challenges facing Jordan but it remains a very visible and focused issue. The political upheaval of the past several years may be seen in the fact that the King has appointed five different prime ministers since the beginning of the Arab Spring. 

Ultimately, King Abdullah determined to dissolve the House of Deputies elected in 2010 roughly half way through its mandate and announced that early elections would be held in late 2012 or early 2013.  As a sign of reform, new election laws were to be put in place to elect the next parliament.  Subsequently, Jordan’s new Independent Election Commission (IEC 2012) announced that on January 23, 2013 early elections will be held to elect members of the House of Deputies which is the only body directly elected by Jordanian citizens. 

Since 1993, Jordan’s electoral system to the House of Deputies has been based upon the “single non-transferable vote system” (SNTV).  Unlike most electoral systems, SNTV, “combines multimember districts with the rule that a single vote is cast for a particular candidate, which often results in candidates winning seats with the support of only a small minority of the voting population.”[ii] Since its introduction, SNTV has been controversial with those in opposition arguing that the law discourages the development of political parties in favour of votes being cast for individual candidates most often representing tribal groups versus a political party platform.[iii] Another criticism put forward is that SNTV is easily “gerrymandered” with districts varying in voters per Member of Parliament (MP) between 8,000 and 46,000.[iv]

On June 19, 2012, parliament followed through on King Abdullah’s call for reform and adopted a new electoral law.  The June election law resulted in a mixed system under which voters have two ballots, one under SNTV for a candidate at the district level and one for candidates competing at the national level under proportional representation.[v] The size of the House of Deputies was also increased from 120 to 140 seats of which 17 were to be elected from the national level lists (which include but are not limited to political parties) based on proportional representation.  The number of seats reserved to guarantee women’s representation was increased from 12 to 15.[vi]

Characteristic of the strong views held regarding electoral reform in Jordan, “20 MPs threatened to resign—two even came to blows—over the proposed law. Hours after it was approved, leader of the Islamic Action Front (IAF) Hamza Mansour dismissed it as ‘just a cosmetic change meant to buy time and insufficient for real reforms.’” [vii]  There was immediate talk of an election boycott.

On June 29^th, responding to the threat of a boycott, King Abdullah asked the parliament to convene an extraordinary session and on July 4, 2012 the government proposed increasing the number of national proportional representation seats to 27.[viii] The size of the House of Deputies was also increased to 150.  

However, the amended version of the new electoral law similarly, “triggered instant uproar across the kingdom among opposition and pro-reform activists.”[ix] The Muslim Brotherhood stated that its political wing, the IAF will boycott the January 2013 elections.  Other opposition elements have similarly announced an election boycott.[x]

On the one hand, King Abdullah and his supporters express that the changes to the electoral laws are meaningful. As the Jordanian Ambassador in London wrote at the end of October 2012, “This is the first time in Jordan's history that a national list is introduced to complement the voting system. This is meant to encourage participation and representation of political parties.”[xi] Beyond the legislative electoral reforms, it has been reported that; “According to the king's roadmap, elections will be held Jan. 23 for a parliament that will then choose the prime minister. Previously, it was the king's prerogative to appoint a premier.”[xii] and “The king also suggested that the next government might come from parliament itself, from whatever key parties and blocs of MPs coalesce after the election.”[xiii]

On the other hand, the opposition movement has stated a number of demands including, denying the ability of the King to dissolve parliament, parliamentary control over the formation of the government, direct election of the upper house and a mixed electoral law that allocates 50% of seats for the national list by proportional representation and for the remaining 50% of electoral districts allowing voters in each district to vote for all of the candidates in the district.[xiv]

So it can be seen that there are two dramatically different perceptions of what is substantial reform of the legal framework for elections and whether the pace is acceptable.  According to one observer of Jordanian politics, “the polarization has, in fact, reached potentially dangerous levels.”[xv] Another comments, “If various opposition forces do not see the elections as credible, you will see real signs of instability."[xvi]

However, there remains the potential for further progress in electoral reform.  The King is reported in October 2012 as acknowledging that, “This elections law is not perfect. We all understand that. But there is no better consensus on an alternative. What is critical is that we keep going forward.”[xvii]  Despite boycotting the upcoming elections, Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood deputy leader is reported in November 2012 to have, “expressed his belief that there is still plenty of time to reconsider the political Jordanian path. He called for a national dialogue table that will be based on postponing the elections and reconsidering the roadmap for political reform.”[xviii]

The process of electoral reform may be extremely complicated and various stakeholders need to be heard and accounted for.  For this to occur in any situation, dialogue remains a crucial component.