Government to go?

Jordan's incumbent government is leading the country into crisis, with neither the people nor parliamentarians satisfied with its performance, writes Khetam Malkawi

Since its first day in office, the government of Prime Minister Fayez Al-Tarawneh was described by Jordanian politicians and analysts as "provocative" as it adopted decisions that sparked anger across the country.

Unlike the previous three governments that took the office over the past two years, during the Arab Spring, who were cautious not to take any decision that would anger the public, Al-Tarawneh's government neglected street demands by enforcing fuel price hikes leading to strikes that swept the kingdom's 12 governorates over the weekend and prompted parliamentarians to sign a motion of no confidence.

Late Friday, authorities decided to raise the price of 90-octane gasoline from 0.7 Jordanian Dinars (JD) per litre to JD0.77, a 10 per cent rise, and the price of diesel from JD0.515 per litre to JD0.55. Friday's decision was the second price hike in the past three months, since Al-Tarawneh took office.

This decision, according to officials, was aimed at minimising the cost on the Treasury, which is expected to suffer an estimated deficit of over JD1 billion this year, of supporting oil derivative prices.

This sudden rise was met with shock by Jordanians from all walks of life who took to the streets chanting slogans against the Cabinet, demanding Al-Tarawneh and his ministers leave office amid courageous slogans that targeted the monarch, King Abdullah, himself.

Not only the public showed anger, but also 89 MPs of the 120-seat lower house of parliament signed a motion of no confidence against Al-Tarawneh's government, in response to this decision and previous decisions.

Unless saved by the bell, more escalated measures were supposed to take place across the country of 6.5 million people.

Two days into implementation of the fuel price hike, the king ordered the government to freeze the decision, absorbing the anger of Jordanians.

This last decision by the Cabinet was not the only provocative one, but it was the most, as it affected the majority of the country's people, according to analysts interviewed by Al-Ahram Weekly.

Islamic Action Front (IAF) Secretary-General Hamzah Mansour described this government as a "burden".

"It started its mission by ignoring the people and political parties' demands of having a fair elections law," Mansour said, noting this government "adopted" again the one-person one-vote electoral system that was rejected by the majority of Jordanians.

The IAF was the first political party to boycott the upcoming parliamentary elections set to take place before the end of this year, objecting to the one-man one-vote law, saying that it aims at eliminating their presence in the people's parliament.

The government also put itself in confrontation with the media after endorsing amendments to the Press and Publications Law that seeks to limit media freedoms and targets online media, according to Mansour.

Two weeks ago, the government endorsed amendments to the law under which a specialised court will look into media cases, and set a four-month deadline for this court to wrap up any case it looks into.

The legislation also holds online media outlet publishers responsible for comments their readers might post under published articles, in addition to requesting them to archive comments for a period no less than six months.

The draft law, which met with refusal from journalists and online news publishers, is currently being deliberated by the House of Representatives.

But the last decision of raising fuel prices was the worst, according to Mansour, who noted that the king's interference saved the country from falling into crisis.

Jamil Nimri, a deputy and political analyst, agrees with Mansour, but added that the government is "narrow minded" as it "challenged" Jordanians.

Over the past three months, the government announced appointments in high positions that involved relatives of influential figures, and left no room for discussion.

This was also a concern for writer and owner of an online news website Basel Okour who said the government's appointments is an indicator that "public opinion and public reaction is not of its interest".

He added that although three previous governments did not achieve political and economic reform, none of them had the courage to challenge the public as this government, which increased tension in the streets.

Meanwhile, Nimri slammed the government for not opening discussion with Islamists, noting that different currents of the community were waiting for the government to interact with them, "but it failed to".

According to Nimri, the government's decisions reflect the absence of consensus and consultation among government members.

He also noted that although the government stopped the hike of fuel prices, this would not protect it from the no-confidence vote adopted by deputies this week.

The deputy explained that the motion came after an accumulation of wrong decisions made by the government.

Political analyst Hassan Barari also echoed Nimri's view and described the government as being "autocratic".

"The autocratic mind-set of the prime minister and his government has only deepened the political crisis in Jordan. The government -- which was supposed to be transitional -- has made catastrophic decisions that have furthered the widening gap in trust between the state and society," said Barari, who is also a professor at the University of Jordan.

He added that the last decision to raise the prices of petrol in Jordan convinced observers and pundits that the prime minister is isolated from the street: "The government cannot claim with any credibility that it is responsive to the demands of people."

All these decisions were taking place, according to Barari, at a time the government has mobilised its resources to convince Jordanians to register for the upcoming elections. However, he said: "The modest number of those who have registered for elections is indicative of the lack of trust of the people in this government."

So far, of the three million Jordanians who can vote, only 700,000 citizens have registered for the upcoming parliamentary elections.

This crisis, prompted news reports expecting that Al-Tarawneh would submit his resignation to the king within days.

Although Barari considers the government's resignation -- or being dismissed by the king -- a must, Mansour said that its resignation alone would not be a solution.

"Over the past two years there were four governments and they failed to achieve reform. Thus the only solution is to have a national salvation government," Mansour concluded.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Government by law or ideology?

The Muslim Brotherhood faces a number of tests of its commitment to democracy and rule of law. Will it pass and prosper, or fail and fade, asks Azmi Ashour

The significance of Mohamed Mursi's presidential victory lies not so much in his membership in the Muslim Brotherhood as it does with the fact that he was the first Egyptian president to be elected in accordance with the rules of free and fair democratic elections and the unfalsified will of the people. But will the government over the next four years administer the state and society in this same spirit, which champions justice and the rule of law, or will it let group ideology prevail over these fundamental principles and values? There are a number of indicators that will enable us to gauge which way the government is heading.

- The "ikhwanisation" (from ikhwan, meaning Brotherhood in Arabic) of the state apparatus: Public agencies of every sort, from the Education Ministry through the national press and the judiciary are rife with fears and rumours that the Muslim Brotherhood will gradually fill their hierarchical ranks with Muslim Brotherhood members or supporters. If this turns out to be the case, then the new president will not just have broken one of his pledges; he will be actively undermining the very value of justice that elevated him to the presidency. President Mursi was not elected because he was the most competent of the contenders. His victory was the result of a variety of circumstances and factors, among which were his Muslim Brotherhood affiliation and the attitude of the revolutionaries towards his rival in the run-offs, Ahmed Shafik, who lost by only one per cent of the votes cast. Therefore, the new president's first duty should be to activate the values of the rule of law and justice in accordance with which skills, competence, dedication and commitment to serving one's country prevail over party or religious affiliation. To ignore these values will only reproduce the situation that existed under the old regime, which chose its elites on the basis of personal and party loyalties at the expense of objective professional and performance standards. That self-serving approach was a major cause of the deterioration of government performance over the past several decades.

A drive to "ikhwanise" government would be the beginning of the end of the Muslim Brotherhood. Effectively that organisation would be pitting itself against the realities of Egyptian society, which consists, firstly, of a 200-year-old state apparatus that was established on the premise that it should remain neutral in its political allegiances. It will simultaneously be pitting itself against liberal and civil political forces which have the potential to become a powerful voice if they unify and organise themselves effectively in the face of a threat to their marginalisation and elimination under a Muslim Brotherhood scheme to purge the state bureaucracy and fill it with Muslim Brotherhood loyalists. Such an exclusionist policy would create a host of other problems for the Muslim Brotherhood, both at home and abroad, for it would be perceived as a radical organisation bent on political hegemony and inimical to the values of democracy that brought them to power, as opposed to an ordinary political force willing to play by the rules and principles of the peaceful rotation of authority.

- Attitudes towards the Egyptian judiciary: It is vital that the president and his government respect the long-established heritage, prestige and authority of the judicial establishment, up to and including the Supreme Constitutional Court. The head of this institution is the third highest authority in the country, after the president and the speaker of the People's Assembly, which is why the president elect took his oath of office before this body in the absence the People's Assembly which had been dissolved on the basis of a court ruling. President Mursi was the first to reap the benefits of the probity of the judiciary whose members supervised and ensured the integrity of the presidential elections. It would be unprecedented if the executive, today, perpetrated something akin to an assault against this establishment which even the former president, for all his authoritarianism, was unable to defy in two similar cases when the Supreme Constitutional Court ruled to dissolve the People's Assembly in 1987 and 1990 on the grounds of the unconstitutionality of the electoral law. President Mursi is facing a crucial test. Will he respect the court's ruling to dissolve parliament even if his party is the most damaged? Will he act on the realisation that this short-term damage will be much less severe than the long-term damage that will accrue to the Muslim Brotherhood from the erosion of its credibility in the eyes of the public should it choose to ignore the rule of law and persist in its defiance of the judiciary?

- The new constitution: The second constituent assembly charged with drafting the new constitution is very similar in composition to the first assembly, which was dominated by Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) and Nour Party members and which was ruled illegitimate. The Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis' obvious determination to assert overwhelming control over the drafting the constitution flies in the face of an important pillar for any constitution and, indeed, any legislation intended to serve the public, which is that it should promote the common good, not the narrow interests of certain individuals or groups. The ruling FJP would earn considerable credit if it accepted a court ruling nullifying the second constituent assembly and agreed to let a neutral party select a new assembly. The best candidate for that neutral party is the judiciary, which supervised the elections that brought Islamist victories in the legislative assemblies and the presidency. A selection committee consisting of judges and representatives of all the diverse political and social forces in society would guarantee a high degree of integrity, impartiality and public legitimacy in the eventual outcome.

President Mursi and the Muslim Brotherhood face three crucial tests. The way they act in the foregoing areas will tell us whether they are sincere in their pledge to work together with others to build a truly democratic society in Egypt. If so, they will be one of the foremost beneficiaries. If not, which is to say if they are set on imposing the Muslim Brotherhood's political and ideological hegemony, they will usher in the beginning of the end of this organisation that has preoccupied public opinion for the past 50 years, not just in Egypt but in many other countries of the world.

The writer is managing editor of the quarterly journal Al-Demoqrateya published by Al-Ahram.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.