JORDAN: An election observer’s view of recent parliamentary vote

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

As an international observer of Jordan’s Nov. 9 parliamentary elections for the International Republican Institute, I found myself confronted with a paradox: Although the voting process can be characterized as credible, the elections unfolded within a broader political system that lacks credibility.

The Jordanian government clearly tried to improve the mechanics of elections from previous years, and deserves credit for opening up the process to scrutiny by domestic and international observers.

At the micro level, officials were well prepared and organized, sought to demonstrate meticulous compliance with procedural requirements, and tried to maintain a high level of integrity and transparency during the actual voting and counting processes.

Candidates also engaged in real competition locally, sending representatives to polling places to promptly question anything that might constitute a violation of protocol, greeting poll workers and monitors politely, and checking on turnout.

At the macro level, however, the government put much less effort into crafting an electoral law that would have been broadly acceptable within Jordan, thereby alienating the country’s principal opposition party, the Islamic Action Front, or IAF.

The new electoral law did not correct several structural problems — namely the chronic underrepresentation of citizens in urban areas and the general powerlessness of the parliament — in the political system. The resulting IAF boycott meant there was no real electoral competition at the national level.

There were also some flaws in the elections’ transparency.

First, elections are not run by an independent commission but by two government ministries.

Second, while each voter could cast only one vote within a given district, candidates actually competed against each other in small groups known as virtual sub-districts (with the highest vote-getter in each group winning). Government officials could have encouraged a favored candidate to run in a certain virtual sub-district against weaker rivals.

Third, while the voting and counting at each individual ballot box was open to scrutiny, the aggregation process that yielded the final results and voter turnout figures was not.

When the results came in, Jordanians doubted the officially announced voter turnout of 53% — not ridiculously high, but not as low as expected in light of historical trends, the unpopularity of the electoral law, and the IAF boycott. They viewed it as the government’s attempt to prove that it could hold meaningful elections without real opposition.

Now that the elections are over, two important questions remain. First, will the incoming assembly enjoy more credibility with the public than the one elected in 2007, which the king later dissolved for election rigging and irresponsible behavior? Second, what steps, if any, will the Jordanian government take to address festering concerns about the electoral system and the role of the parliament?

These two questions are more closely linked than might be apparent at first. The cleaner and more transparent electoral process demonstrated this month should mean fewer questions about whether the deputies seated in the new assembly were fairly elected.

But it will be difficult for the deputies and political parties to gain credibility with the public — and for the parliament itself to be taken seriously — if they have few real opportunities to shape public policy. Unless that happens, the goal of a more credible assembly is likely to remain elusive.

Whether the new parliament is deemed a success, Jordan’s elections established the precedent of opening much of the process to scrutiny by domestic and international monitors. Only in future elections when there is real competition will we find out whether this change represented an important step forward or a brief moment of transparency in Jordanian politics.

-- Michelle Dunne in Washington