The crisis between the state and the Islamic movement in Jordan

Relations between the state and the Islamic movement in Jordan have become strained following the arrest of Zaki Bani Irsheid, the Muslim Brotherhood’s deputy secretary-general on charges of souring ties with a foreign country on Facebook in November 2014.

The group’s response was to condemn the arrest of Bani Irsheid and his sentencing to a year in prison in March 2015. Many considered this incident to be an important development in Jordan’s relations with the movement. Although dozens of Brotherhood members have been arrested or interrogated in the past by security forces, and despite the movement’s role in controlling the Jordanian public under the roof of reforming the government during the Arab Spring, analysis is divided amongst those who believe it is an escalatory measure and those who believe it is an isolated incident in response to the circumstances.

A lot of information regarding the reality of the crisis has been leaked, but the encouragement of a group of former leaders to form an opposition group to the Muslim Brotherhood with the same name, i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood Society, has pushed matters to a new level of tension. Many of the information leaks stated that there is a new decision to divide and target the Brotherhood in order to weaken it and perhaps strip it of its political and legal legitimacy.

Many of the “partial” measures to prevent the group from holding its usual social, religious, and political activities formed part of a programme to confront the group, which was not lost on those observing the situation. Despite this, there have been growing questions regarding the purpose of these measures and how they serve Jordan’s greater interests.

This clearly suggests that the state may have decided to reconsider the rules of the historical relationship between the two sides while uncertainty still surrounds the reasons for this on the political and social level. The Muslim Brotherhood has historically formed a key building block for national unity between the various regional components of Jordan. It also acted as the safety valve preventing the country from sliding into violence and chaos in the years 1957, 1989, 1991, and 2011.

Therefore, understanding the nature of the crisis and its trends has become a matter of national interest and a historical mission, regardless of the group’s ideological or political position. This is due to the fact that the matter has become concerned with the interests of the country and its future rather than the mere interests of a group of politicians or a small party, taking into consideration the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood has been considered the largest popular force in the country over the past seven decades.

In principle, the relationship between the Brotherhood and the state has been based on freedom of work, preserving national unity, and maintaining stability and security in the country. It was also based on all levels of civil peaceful activity, and co-existence remained the dominant position of both sides in light of security clashes from the state and political clashes from the Brotherhood throughout history.

The King continued to consider the Brotherhood as an important safeguard of stability and security in the country, and therefore the philosophy of co-existence became the basis and foundation for the relationship between the Brotherhood and the state. The rules of the relationship between the two sides were unbreakable even in light of the shifts in the Islamic trend’s relationship with many governments in the region.

The Muslim Brotherhood had gained social, legal, and political legitimacy and it played an important role in the country’s political work since it launched the new Jordanian democratic experience in 1989. The group was also the most prominent opposition in its policies and positions but never once took a position against the interests of the country. It justified its opposition by saying that it was out to protect the country’s interests, which allowed it to remain a national group that received the respect of society across the social spectrum. It also reassured the state that it would not compete with it and that it only sought political participation and constitutional amendments in accordance with the rules of the constitution and public order.

This relationship established the state’s policy of not targeting the group. It did, however, take measures to keep the group within a certain size politically, socially and religiously, in a manner that did not allow it to gain the power to impose its view on the country and the state. Such measures included actions to stall and hinder the group’s activities, arresting a number of its members and leaders, and downsizing the group in the parliamentary elections through numerous means that pushed the group to boycott the elections on many occasions. The state has also relatively limited the group’s institutions and prevented it from expanding its social and civil work in the country. However, the Royal Palace continued to support the idea of the Brotherhood’s moderation, wisdom, and legitimacy during the reigns of King Hussein and King Abdullah II, i.e. over the past 65 years.

Therefore, stopping to take a closer look at the reasons for the current tension between the two sides, its motives, consequences, who it benefits, and who is behind it, is actually a national matter. Being fair and objective when dealing with the group’s and Jordanian state’s positions may serve the purpose of understanding and finding better alternatives to tension and concern in the national unity equation. This is especially true after hearing the numerous accusations of the group taking Palestinian approaches, as if the Palestinian cause is not at the heart of Jordanian policy. Moreover, raising the issue of the Brotherhood leaders’ Palestinian origins drives us towards dangerous social divides, which poses a threat to the social fabric and national unity, especially since many state officials are themselves either of Palestinian origin or are somehow connected to Palestinians either through marriage, partnership, etc.

Therefore, the national, scientific, and objective requirements for the situation force us to move towards drawing a map to escape the crisis rather than deepen it. This is especially true since we learned that one of the most dangerous consequences of tension between the two sides, the decision of the Brotherhood, and the intervention of the state and its favouring of one side against the other is the state’s loss of its sponsorship role and its role of reconciling various components in the country. The Jordanian state established itself as a state of law and citizenship, so how can it justify the actions of some against a moderate national Jordanian group, even if they sometimes disagree with their opinions or political positions?

Some date the growing tension between the state and the Brotherhood to the Arab Spring in 2011, while others date it back to the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in elections in 2012, and others date it to the fall of the Brotherhood’s rule in Egypt in 2013. The common factor is that this level of tension affects the rules of the relationship between the group and the state, and the behaviour of the Jordanian state with the group, or with any similar or partisan groups. This leaves the opportunity for re-evaluation in accordance with a clear approach and method.

Therefore, it is imperative for any discussion of the topic to follow a clear and scientific method and approach that concludes that the country has gained from this tension. What is the value of weakening a group adhering to the law and the state that operates publically, which supports stability, security, and moderation, and which is considered an important factor of national unity? Strategic questions must also be answered, such as what national interest is served by escalating and continuing this tension? What interests were lost as a result of this tension?

The discussion table is always considered the common denominator among people in general, and especially politicians. This is especially true amongst the members of a single family, which is the case due to Jordan’s consensual government, its strong social ties, and the stability of its tribal and familial structure. This is reinforced by relationships of lineage, kinship, and blood, thus giving it an advantage over many other countries.

Therefore, opening direct and indirect lines of dialogue and communication, adopting openness in addressing disputed issues, revealing the nature of the group’s policies and true positions regarding the developments in the region, including the decision-makers in the process of bridging the gap with the group, encouraging the group to remain united to maintain national unity, addressing the serious challenges facing the country, and providing an atmosphere conducive to freely preaching moderate Islam, its programmes, and its leaders, which is greatly represented by the Brotherhood, is required at the time being. The adoption such thinking today has become urgent and necessary for the country and group’s leadership. It is also necessary for the many wise people of this country.

Given the shifts in the country’s policies and the regional and internal re-positioning in a number of axes, restoring and improving the relationship between the state and the Brotherhood would save national efforts and will unite them to face the challenges. It will also increase the elements of security and stability in the country, especially if this is followed by a real and serious amendment to the election law that will allow for the existence of the group in political life in the form of its political party.

In the event that this approach is successful, Jordan would truly be summoning its inner strength and its distinctive human strength, along with its ability to coexist and integrate, to form a strong unified stabile country that is capable to deal with internal and external variables arising from extremism and terrorism, expansionist theories proposed by some parties, attempts to harm the country’s value, or attempts to exploit Jordan’s needs by others. Thus Jordan will possess the power and confidence needed to make the necessary change to amend any policies or structures, all the while backed by its national unity.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that an article like this is not long enough to fit the details that I may have left out. However, going back to my past literature, along with the state and group’s literature, regarding this crisis supports and enriches many of the ideas in the article. I aimed to put the crises between the Brotherhood with the state in its intellectual and political context with regards to the country’s greater interests. The importance of these interests is not lost on decision-makers during this critical time of the Kingdom’s history, given the threats surrounding it and the challenges facing it.

All of this makes the resolution of the crisis a matter of state interest, as well as a means of serving the group’s interests. Therefore, it is in the supreme interest of the country. The state, Muslim Brotherhood, society, national forces, and the media all play a leading and important role in the necessary redirection of the crisis compass.

Translated from Al Jazeera net, 17 August, 2015.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.