Kingdom of Silence?

Human Rights Watch issued a damning report on Jordan this week, entitled Shutting Out the Critics, basically accusing King Abdullah II of talking a good game about reform to the West while actually further restricting freedoms inside the Hashemite Kingdom.

Check out the full report, but here are a few key excerpts:

Jordan has long sought to present itself as a country of political reform. The king and his diplomatic representatives make polished presentations when visiting Western capitals about how they are moving forward with legislative and policy changes to bring about increased freedoms and the rule of law. At his keynote speech for the World Economic Forum held at the Dead Sea in May 2007, King Abdullah emphasized the priority he places on developing and promoting civil society in the country. The stark realities in Jordan contrast with this rosy picture presented to the world.

In the past few years, rather than broadening the space for civil society participation in the country's public affairs, the Jordanian government has made it increasingly difficult for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to operate—or even exist—with a modicum of independence. In 2007, the cabinet proposed a new Law on Charitable Societies and Social Institutions, a draft of which imposes restrictions on associations stricter than those of the current 30-year-old law.

Jordan likes to pride itself on a vibrant civil society, but in reality, NGOs who actually dare to be critical of the government struggle to ward off continual pressure and interference from the authorities. As a result, many do not criticize the government, and those that do face closure and, at worse, prosecution and possible prison time for their employees.

The Ministry of Interior has clamped down on the right of Jordanians to freely assemble, whether in a demonstration or in public meetings in smaller groups. Following a change in the Law on Public Gatherings in 2001, affirmed by parliament in 2004, a governor must now approve demonstrations or public meetings in advance instead of being only notified. In most cases of requests for approval that Human Rights Watch has learned about, governors have denied permission, without giving a reason.

As evidence for its charge that the government has backtracked on reform, the opposition cites a newly enacted Law on Political Parties, which is likely to shut down many of the smaller parties due to the high numbers of five hundred required founding members, now also required to hail from five different governorates. It also cites the government's failure to enact a new electoral law with fairer distribution of parliamentary seats.

While the Jordanian government prides itself on its election in 2006 to the United Nations Human Rights Council and to be one of the council's vice presidents, it has failed to live up to its pledge as a council member to “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights,” as the UN General Assembly resolution creating the Human Rights Council defined the responsibilities of Council members.

HRW's recommendations to the Jordanian government:

-- Amend its legislation restricting the right to freedom of assembly and of association;

-- Require only notice, not advance permission, for public gatherings and should impose only those restrictions strictly necessary to protect those gathered and the rights of others;

--Automatically register NGOs or non-profit companies who give notice of their formation without government vetting, and should have no role in monitoring or interfering in their work, including by deciding the appropriateness of NGO funding sources on a case-by-case basis, or by removing an NGO's management board. Dissolving an NGO should require a judicial order and include the right to appeal.

The King and his government do talk a good game on reform, and I think they are sincere about it. I never thought the late King Hussein was much of a democrat, but his son is. One of the obstacles to reform, which the HRW doesn't really address, is the political context. Jordan and therefore its regime has been buffeted by one major severe regional crisis after another almost since the day Abdullah became King in 1999: the Palestinian intifadeh that started in 2000, 9/11 in 2001, the Iraq invasion in 2003, and the political turmoil, including the flood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees into Jordan, since then. Another problem throughout this period was the need for Abdullah, who was Hussein's death bed choice as successor, to solidify his authority within Jordan and internationally. Miscalculations can be a matter of life and death for a regime that is caught in the crossfire of regional conflicts and remains divided between Palestinian and tribal forces domestically. Reform entails some risks and a turbulent political environment argues against risk-taking. The King understandably feels that no full democracy can be achieved in Jordan until a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict determines the fate of Jordan's Palestinian refugees once and for all.

But none of that's an excuse. Without question the King and his government need to show much greater commitment and vision in turning his good words into better deeds.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo