Translated by Zach Bampton

“We have become like the villagers in the parable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf: we are no longer able to trust what the government says about its intentions when it comes to reform.” Thabit Assaf, spokesman for the Islamic Action Front, used these words to describe the group’s position following the boycott of local elections and the withdrawal of its “White List” from the Jordan Engineers Association elections. The Islamic Action Front is the political wing of Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood organization.

Islamists described what occurred as a “fixed election,” a result decided beforehand, using a phrase that has come to prominence during the past parliamentary elections, where candidates’ papers were meddled with and some were pressured to withdraw. The group accused “the deep state” as being behind this interference.

The pessimism of Islamists and other political actors about the future of reform is not new in Jordan. However, these complaints coincide with royal commitments to reform. The government has called for political parties to participate in the country’s politics through the “Royal Committee to Modernize the Political System,” which Islamists themselves served in.

According to Assaf, “the political regime in Jordan is one that seeks to transform its relationship not only with the Islamist movement, but with every effective power in society. This transformation occurs through demolishing political and civil society organizations, as well as putting up walls for every call to reform and revising the political system.”

The return of the government’s aggravation with the Islamist movement, he explained, points to “the existence of investigations targeting of every political power around the country. The most prominent among them is the Islamic movement in its role as one of the representatives for the Jordanian people and their political aspirations.”

Three members of the Islamist movement participated in the “Royal Committee to Modernize the Political System” that was formed by King Abdullah II and comprised 92 individuals. The three members where: former General Secretary for the Islamic Action Front Hamza Mansour, member of the Party’s Executive Office Wael Al-Saqa, and former Representative Dema Tahboob.

According to Assaf, participation in the committee came “in terms of carrying out what is required of the movement under the present conditions. But the authorities are determined to use every legitimate and illegitimate means to contest the will of the people and calls for reform and revising the political system.”

Government emphasis on carrying out the committee’s pronouncements

The Jordanian government, in turn, emphasized that it will continue to encourage political parties. Musa al-Mu’ayta, Minister of Parliamentary and Political Affairs, underscored the “importance of political dialogue and listening to different points of view. Together, this input allows decision makers to make use of broader guidance that will enrich their work.” Al-Mu’ayta gave these remarks during debate on the Economic and Social Council of Jordan’s draft of the State of Jordan report for 2021.

The Ministry confirmed “the existence of an executive plan held by the government relating to the Royal Committee’s conclusions. This plan will be dispatched to all the ministries, and the Ministry of Parliamentary and Political Affairs is the key point of this plan.”

However, Islamists contend that “the practical application of this plan contrasts these sentiments entirely,” according to Assaf, who went on to say: “Everything that is being said about these claims not only doesn’t reflect the truth, but it is a cheap trick to stall and buy for time. The facts on the ground show what is happening. So we engaged with [the committee] with caution and were part of this scene without agreeing to all its output, which we tried to fix.”

Other political actors lent their voices to the cause of the Islamists and shared their pessimism about the intention of reform. Activists in the Jordanian Hirak told Arabi21 that these feelings came after recent security force activities around the country. 

On Thursday and Friday, protests broke out in different regions following the arrests of political activists on Monday and Tuesday. Protesters called for the release of the detainees and “the return of the country’s riches.”

Members of the Beni Hassan, Jordan’s largest tribe, gathered and protested in the city of Zarqa on Thursday evening, raising signs like: “Aid and grants in the bellies of corrupt,” “#Pandora_Papers,” and “Freedom for the detainees… the Regime is responsible.”

Lack of Optimism

Some other political parties are speaking out as well. Secretary of the Rescue and Partnership Party Ayman Sanduqa said, “we are receiving conflicting messages around reform. It began with what occurred to the Teachers Union leading to their suspension and the arrest of their leadership. Then came the measures to restrict our party and filling a lawsuit to dissolve it. All this sends a clear message to the people that we are moving backward.”

Sanduqa added: “we are not optimistic for future parliaments that the government claims will be based on party participation. The results will be fixed just like the security services fixed the Engineers Association elections. We can’t rely upon this at all.”

He added: “The authorities use the Muslim Brotherhood as a bogeyman to justify its actions, but the truth is the government is blocking the people’s will and refusing to let it rise to the surface.”

There are many points of contention between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Jordanian government, but tensions reached their peak during the Arab Spring. Throughout this period, counterattacks were launched against the popular Hirak, such as when the government revoked the Muslim Brotherhood’s legal status, restricted its activities, and jailed some its leadership. The government claimed the group was a main driver behind the uprisings. 

The leader of the Islamist movement Zaki Bani Irsheid commented that, “crises continue to tighten their grip on the country and threaten more to come. There is no light at the end of the tunnel, only darkness. The problem is not the presence of the Islamists or their absence. Their participation is not enough to break through the corruption, nor is their boycott sufficient to stop tyranny.”

Irsheid added: “With the absence of the will to reform the system, and no compass to lead us out, all that remains is a maelstrom that will rage until we all sink to the bottom. As for the regime, what it needs is to reaffirm the place and the role for national political involvement. Thus, the question is, how do decision makers see the people? Are they the source of power as mentioned in the constitution? Or are they merely dependents and subjects unfit for democracy and free choice? Should it not concern those interested in politics that the relationship has worsened between the regime and the rest of the political constituencies, civil forces, and civil society organizations?” 

Irsheid concluded to say that: “Jordan is need of a new approach where the regime recognizes the importance and role of the people, and the answer to the question of the future is a relationship with the Islamists.”

Withdrawal of the Islamists

Former president of the Jordanian Association for Political Sciences, Khalid Shnikat, commented on the matter saying, “historically, the Muslim Brotherhood has been part of the regime in Jordan. However, recent changes in the region caused them to be viewed with suspicion. Do they want to play politics and respect the rules of the game, or is there something else? This is the dominant view towards engaging with the Brotherhood.”

He added: “In light of modernization and the new view of political life here in Jordan, it is normal for everyone to participate. Yet, political activists, among them the Brotherhood, complain about the issue of restrictions. For example, the Brotherhood points toward what occurred in the Engineering Association’s elections and how they were crowded out. To them, these actions are unfair, and this is what led to their withdrawal from the coming elections.”

Shnikat expects that “the next stage will end in the Islamists withdrawing and walling themselves in, like their boycott of the elections. This might cause strife within the organization between those that are angry and call for welfare work, and those who are gambling on political participation. The latter is losing strength and now has become limited. All this might lead to other schisms, such as those who decide to participate in politics individually, and a part of them could become more extreme.”

Additionally, he proposed that “any party that does not participate in the political process signs its own death warrant. Even if it faces steep challenges, withdrawal is withdrawal. This is what happened when the Brotherhood boycotted the elections and lost its electoral share, regardless of the conditions that surrounded that election.”

He concluded by saying: “I believe the rational view is that it is incumbent upon the state to study the reasons and contexts for the Brotherhood’s boycott. In every nation, elections are an opportunity to reaffirm and ensure stability, and to guarantee moderation. Opening up the political arena to all actors, not just the Brotherhood, will allow them ato become part of the process. Together, they can help achieve the positive change that all political systems aspire to, and that is a guarantee of political development.”

The Islamists sent a message to the establishment through their spokesman Assaf, who said “antagonizing other political powers is running up a bill that the regime will pay one day when they find themselves forced to reform to preserve itself, but they will not find anyone who believes them. Then they will have lost their power.”