One of the major events, in my opinion, that caught my eye this week was the decision of King Abdullah in Jordan to dissolve parliament in light of (relatively peaceful) protests for election reform. A short article on the BBC news website, last edited this morning, wraps up the issue very nicely. The protests have been for more control for the people in how the country is run and a decrease in corruption. The protesters have also said that the new voter laws have not gone far enough in these goals. In response, the Islamic Action Front, the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, has said it will boycott the polls.
This really got me thinking. I agree that the Jordanian electoral system needs reform, to be more free and subjected to the will of the people. However, that is not the only issue in the electoral process. It's all fine and dandy if the people elect a Parliament that actively represents their interests, but King Abdullah (or any Jordanian monarch for that matter) still has the power to dissolve it at any point! Granted, I doubt a monarch wishing to stay in good standing would dissolve a widely popular Parliament, but the chance is still there.
In essence, until the monarchy is separated more from the legislative body, little reform can be highly effective.
This really got me thinking. I agree that the Jordanian electoral system needs reform, to be more free and subjected to the will of the people. However, that is not the only issue in the electoral process. It's all fine and dandy if the people elect a Parliament that actively represents their interests, but King Abdullah (or any Jordanian monarch for that matter) still has the power to dissolve it at any point! Granted, I doubt a monarch wishing to stay in good standing would dissolve a widely popular Parliament, but the chance is still there.
In essence, until the monarchy is separated more from the legislative body, little reform can be highly effective.
No comments:
Post a Comment