The Washington Post suggests that the popularity of the Islamist party in Jordan may be able to bring it success in next year?s elections, ?in line with the speedy evolution in three nearby countries,? it says, in a comparison to recent Islamist victories in Egypt , the Palestinian Territories, and Iraq . The Islamic Action Front (IAF) party, dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood , may be the largest opposition party in Jordan, but comparisons of strength and potential power to its counterparts in Egypt and the Palestinian Territories are not justified. The IAF won just 17 out of 110 seats in the lower house of Jordanian parliament in the last elections, a number representing a steady decline from previous elections. This makes it far from the potential ?electoral juggernaut? it is referred to in the article. If anything, the fact that the largest and best organized opposition party can only take 17 out of 110 seats may be interpreted as a victory for the status quo.
There is some concern that the IAF may be able to capitalize on the perceived massive opposition of the Jordanian population to the monarchy?s support of the US occupation in Iraq. Compounded by the anger of Palestinian-Jordanians in the country over Jordan?s relations with Israel , the IAF may be able to capture (or recapture) a number of seats. However, disagreement with the monarchy?s foreign policy is likely to take a back seat to domestic issues?such as the price of staples, the distribution of state resources to tribes and areas, and the availability of jobs. Though the IAF can promise such things, there is not much confidence that it has the resources to provide them. This is why most of the seats in Jordan?s lower house are held by tribal or area representatives. Jordanians elect those who they think will be able to use their influence to procure resources for the limited constituency that they represent. In Islamist strongholds where the IAF represents such resources, the IAF wins votes. However, as long as Jordanians vote based on resources and not on ideology, IAF popularity will be limited to those places where it provides some services and where tribal ties are not as strong.
The significant opposition to the monarchy?s current relations with Israel and the United States is also likely to be tempered by pragmatic, largely economic, concerns. Jordanian Islamists? rhetoric implies that, should they ever have the power to enact their agenda, the relationship with the US would change drastically, and Jordan would end its diplomatic relations with Israel. This may be a popular idea in theory with much of the general population, but the Jordanian elite and possibly a considerable portion of the rest of the population understand that the idea is untenable in practice. Severing Jordan?s productive relations with Israel and the US is like severing two of the country?s primary economic arteries. The enactment of a Free Trade Agreement between Jordan and the US and the creation of the Qualified Industrial Zones (QIZs)?in which goods are produced jointly with Israeli and Jordanian labor?had the combined effect over six years of increasing revenues from exports 3,750 percent, increasing foreign direct investment 400 percent, and creating over 30,000 new jobs in Jordan?half of all new job creation (measured over the 1996-2003 period). This is in addition to the US$350 million in aid that the US gives to the country of 5.3 million people. The Muslim Brotherhood provides as many schools and services as it possibly can, but it cannot compete with the benefits of productive relations with the US and Israel.
The reaching of some analyses and press reports to extend assumptions of growing Islamist strength in the region to Jordan just does not hold up. Dissatisfaction with monarchical foreign policy does not automatically translate into significant electoral victories for the opposition, especially in a country in which the government does a competent job, at least compared to other Arab countries, of providing services, distributing resources, and being relatively less despotic than other countries in the area.
