I wrote once that democracy should follow the rule of one man, one vote, in the context of Kuwait. So why am I repeating this today? Well, because my topic today is about Jordan, not Kuwait, and because my opinion is open to change this time. In Kuwait, I called for the abolition of the voter's right to vote four times, because the opposition exploited this to distort the will of Kuwaiti voters, as has indeed happened. In Jordan, King Abdullah II made up his mind, and the one man, one vote law came into effect. He dissolved the parliament on September 29, and the next elections are scheduled for January 23, 2013. But I had hoped that the king would sponsor a law that would grant voters the right to choose two candidates. The reason I have gone around the conventional definition of democracy is that if Jordanian voters are given only one choice for someone to represent them, many would choose their relatives or members of their own clans, and place considerations of loyalty over competence. But if the voters are given a bigger chance, then perhaps their second choice would be a competent and experienced candidate who would serve the entire country, and not just narrow interests. As I followed news of the political crisis in Jordan, I recalled what I saw in Kuwait. Again and again, I have noticed that the issues in the two countries are so similar that they are nearly identical. In Kuwait, I found that there have been exaggerations that border on being deliberate lies over the issue of corruption. I had stated that the global Corruption Perceptions Index places Kuwait in 54th place among 182 countries surveyed, which is a well-placed rank that falls within both the top quarter and the top third of the list. But at least, there are high oil revenues in Kuwait and money that can indeed lead to corruption. Jordan, however, does not have significant reserves of any natural resources, and phosphate cannot be compared to oil. Nevertheless, I was surprised to find that the debate over corruption overshadowed all else in the country, so much so that there are voices in Amman claiming that recovering the funds that were allegedly embezzled would be sufficient to pay off Jordan's external debt. This is nonsense, and yet, there are some who believe it. Jordan (believe it or not) immediately follows Kuwait in the CPI list, which puts the country ahead of all non-oil producing countries. To the opposition, therefore, I say that there are a thousand real reasons to complain, so don't fabricate or lie. Kuwait has beaten Jordan in the number of parliaments voted in since the beginning of the past decade, but Jordan beat the whole world in the number of prime ministers and former ministers. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think there are about 16 former prime ministers in Jordan and a few hundred ex-ministers. In Kuwait, the majority in the dissolved parliament of 2012 is threatening to boycott the next elections, scheduled for early next month. And in Jordan, the Islamists and the Reform Movement led by Hikmat Obeidat, a former director of the intelligence services, are leading a campaign to boycott the upcoming elections. The opposition in both countries held protests and sit-ins, and broke the law without changing anything. To be sure, the Kuwaiti government has maintained its position, and perhaps the violent opposition has even increased its insistence on its position, and the same can be said about the situation in Jordan. In both countries, I see no room for compromise or agreement prior to the elections. The Kuwaiti opposition has already lost, even before the voting. Indeed, the one vote rule means that the opposition will be denied the chance to exchange favors with known groups that are only loyal to themselves or their tribes, not their country. Things in Jordan are better. Nonetheless, I do not see any reason today for me to expect the opposition to backpedal from its boycott of the elections, or the government to change its position. The opposition has backed itself into a corner, and the Jordanian government has already started registering voters, with 2.3 million voters out of 3.6 eligible citizens already registered. The government expressed satisfaction with this number, which amounts to around two-thirds of the total, and this is a good number if two-thirds of the voters cast ballots. But if only half of registered voters turn up, then this would be considered a low turnout, and would strengthen the opposition's argument – something that will not happen in Kuwait. Of course, every country has its own particular set of circumstances. Kuwait is faring better than most Arab countries, with secure borders and high and sufficient oil revenues, with a broad margin of freedom. Jordan, meanwhile, has very limited capabilities, and is in need of foreign aid and support. Tomorrow, I will continue talking about Jordan, having dedicated three articles to Kuwait last month. [email protected]
