What lies behind the constitutional amendments in Jordan?

To understand the purpose of any legislation, legislators look into the reasons behind the need for such legislation. In the event that legislators are convinced by the reasons, they look into what extent the proposed legislation will achieve its means. This is how Jordan has operated since its foundation as a state.  

However, unfortunately, the most dangerous legislation in the history of the Kingdom, since approving the constitution in 1952, has been proposed and approved. The government has suddenly proposed a group of radical constitutional amendments and it is worth noting that these amendments were not accompanied by worthwhile or convincing reasons. What is even stranger is the fact that the government “approved” these amendments in one session and the sudden news of such approval did not state who proposed these amendments. It is clear that the majority of the ministers who approved them did not know about these amendments before the session, as if they had known about them, the issue would have been leaked in order for the people and the elites to give their opinion.  

As I have stated in previous articles, there are no secrets regarding the work of the government and many other institutions in Jordan because it is a small country and because the 7 million Jordanians are linked either by blood, marriage, friendship, by being neighbours or colleagues. This has established an old media and information network that preceded Twitter.

Leaking secrets, regardless of who leaks them and how high their position is, has its legitimate reasons, including gathering rejection for a particular resolution or policy being prepared. Sometimes, the person leaking the information is not strong enough to reject it in a country where people are openly appointed to positions, even to positions which are legally and constitutionally supposed to be elected. A Jordanian newspaper published a statement in which a member of the senate was gloating about appointing half of the house of representative members when he was head of intelligence and this did not negatively affect him. Constitutional amendments are not a secret and cannot be a secret. They must be presented to the entire population in order to discuss it. Most democratic constitutions stipulate the need to present amendments, after being approved by legislators, followed by a popular referendum in-order to put them into effect.  

Nothing like this happened. Therefore, the sudden amendments were met with a fierce rejection campaign by the parliament and even by the elites. However, the anger of the MPs focused on the amendment regarding dual nationals being able to hold senior positions (ministerial positions), even though it is not the most dangerous amendment. The most dangerous amendments are those that change the nature of government in Jordan from a constitutional kingdom to an absolute kingdom.  

As many have stated, it lifts the King’s immunity by acquitting the government from anything that may result from its exemption from the condition of the Prime Minister and concerned ministers countersigning the royal decree, as stipulated by Article 40 of the constitution. Hence, the new amendment will make the King’s signature an “approval” of these signatures and therefore he will be held responsible.  

The next dangerous amendment is the appointment of the King alone, without appointing anyone as the General Director of the Gendarmerie (Darak Forces), followed by the amendment that involves interference in the MPs’ will regarding the re-election or failure to re-elect a head of parliament by extending their term to two years rather than one. This amendment will practically restrict the will of the “people’s representatives” during half of their terms and almost completely paralyze them during the second half of their terms.  

In addition to this, reducing the government’s authority limits what the MPs can hold the government accountable for. This, in turn, is an unfair restriction or reduction of the people’s rights. The prohibition of reducing the people’s rights by means of any amendment is provided for in a number of constitutions, including some Arab constitutions, such as the Tunisian and Qatari constitution (despite the fact that the latter’s constitution is very similar to ours).  

However, despite all of this, regrettably the MPs most fiercely objected to the issue of position eligibility, as they want the positions to match their characteristics, exclusively. To be honest, the issue has reached the point of allotting tribal and areal shares regarding even the distribution of educational positions, such as university presidencies.

The rejection of this amendment remains justified by the dangers of putting important decisions in the hands of those with dual loyalties. However, the prominent popular conviction was not haphazard, as it has its justifications. The amendment was tailored to fit the characteristics of specific individuals who are rejected by the people in order to appoint them to positions or allow them to return to their positions. This includes the current prime minister who chose not to answer a question about his possession of Canadian citizenship. This indicates a legislative flaw that must be corrected, as legislation cannot be passed in-order to serve or target specific individuals. Instead, legislation must be neutral and serve the greater good.  

What weakens the arguments of the MPs regarding the government that passes legislation to serve their leader or others is that most of them remained silent and even colluded in keeping legislations that blatantly violate the constitution. These legislations aim to prevent me from being nominated for parliament. They are in the form of three laws that were tailored to me specifically (a number of specialists, including Saleh Al-Armouti, head of the lawyers’ union and former minister, and Dr. Mohammad Hammouri, a constitutional law expert, wrote that Ali Abu al-Ragheb’s government amended the constitution with a temporary law in order to prevent my nomination).  

As for the executive authority, they are weakened by the amendments made by the Royal Committee in 2011, labeled as reforms, despite the fact that they reduced the people’s constitutional rights. This included the addition to Article 42, which originally read, “No person shall be appointed a minister unless he is a Jordanian.” The phrase “and does not hold citizenship from another country” was added. This means that the “reformative” amendment purposely closes the door to any interpretation of the article that originally stipulated that the holder of this position must be Jordanian, without any negative effect of them also having another citizenship. Now we are witnessing a new amendment, which requires the omission of the recent addition.  

This appears to be a hidden reason behind these amendments, which were not attached to any other convincing reasons. This is not helped by the three sentences said by the government regarding the amendments “separating authorities” (I have said earlier in this article how the government interferes in the will of the MPs, while the independence of the judiciary is a combination of electing judges for higher commissions and appointing those with seniority to these positions). The excuse of preventing the politicization of the gendarmerie is not convincing, as it is a small executive field security agency, but the danger of this lies in it committing violations. Caution must be taken in order for such violations not to be attributed to the head of state.  

The fact that no one is convinced that these excuses are cause for changing the constitution is highlighted by the fact that a writer, who is known for singing the government’s praises to the point that the government promised him the position of head of a television station similar to BBC, has reached the point of writing articles addressing the government officials. In his articles, he says it is a mistake to ignore the questions of the public opinion and the observations of experts and that it is not too late to provide a political cover for the group of amendments. He added that it is important that the senior officials and concerned individuals speak up and issue a comprehensive statement to the people that puts the proposed amendments in a substantive context, as well as outline the features of the next phase, even if in pencil. In other words, he is asking for them to make justifications that can later be erased, as if he is begging for them to lie to him.

The absence of reasons that would justify the amendments pushes us to think of other reasons that are being overlooked or omitted. Our thoughts must be expanded in terms of geography and time, as we are living in a turbulent region that is experiencing serious developments and changes in which major international powers are involved. We must be cautious and seek to escape from these conditions unscathed, without thinking about coming out the “victor” in this instance. We are not a regional power, we are a soft power, and we must be democratic and peaceful. Any move we make that is larger than our natural size is a risk which may threaten our existence.

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