Does Jordan still have a monarchy?

Jordan and Saudi Arabia are both Sunni monarchies. Jordan, along with Morocco, the only other non-Gulf monarchy in the Arab World, has been invited to join the Gulf Cooperation Council, an organization of Gulf Monarchies.

Jordan–Saudi Arabia relations

Jordan – Saudi Arabia relations are the relations between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Historically, the Hashemite dynasty came to Jordan from the Hijaz which is now called Saudi Arabia. The Hashemites ruled Mecca from the 10th century until 1924, when the area was invaded by the House of Saud in the Saudi conquest of Hejaz.

The two cities of Aqaba and Ma'an were part of the Kingdom of Hejaz (1916–1925). In 1965, Saudi Arabia and Jordan agreed to trade land. Jordan gained 19 kilometers of land on the Gulf of Aqaba and 6,000 square kilometers of
territory in the interior, and 7,000 square kilometers of Jordanian-administered, landlocked territory was ceded to Jordan.

According to a 2013 Pew global opinion poll, 88% of Jordanians express a favourable view of Saudi Arabia, with 11% expressing an unfavourable view, the most favourable opinion of the KSA in the Middle East.
After the elevation of Mohammed bin Salman to Saudi Crown Prince, relations have deteriorated over Saudi attempts to sideline Jordan in negotiations over the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Jordan's reluctant support for the Saudi position during the 2017–18 Qatar diplomatic crisis and limited involvement in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, and growing Jordanian ties with Turkey.

Many nations formerly with absolute monarchies, such as Jordan, Kuwait and Morocco, have moved towards constitutional monarchy, although in some cases the monarch retains tremendous power, to the point that the parliament's influence on political life is negligible.

Absolute monarchy

Absolute monarchy is a form of monarchy in which the monarch holds supreme authority and where that authority is not restricted by any written laws, legislature, or customs. These are often hereditary monarchies. In contrast, in constitutional monarchies, the head of state's authority derives from and is legally bounded or restricted by a constitution or legislature.

Some monarchies have weak or symbolic legislatures and other governmental bodies the monarch can alter or dissolve at will. Countries where monarchs still maintain absolute power are: Brunei, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Eswatini, Vatican City and the individual emirates composing the United Arab Emirates, which itself is a federation of such monarchies – a federal monarchy.

In Ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh wielded absolute power over the country and was considered a living god by his people. In ancient Mesopotamia, many rulers of Assyria, Babylonia and Sumer were absolute monarchs as well. In ancient and medieval India, rulers of the Maurya, Satavahana, Gupta and Chalukya Empires, as well as other major and minor empires, were considered absolute monarchs. In the Khmer Empire, the kings were called "Devaraja" and "Chakravartin" (King of the world), and exercised absolute power over the empire and people.

Throughout Imperial China, many emperors and one empress wielded absolute power through the Mandate of Heaven. In pre-Columbian America, the Inca Empire was ruled by a Sapa Inca, who was considered the son of Inti, the sun god and absolute ruler over the people and nation. Korea under the Joseon dynasty and short-lived empire was also an absolute monarchy. In the Ottoman Empire, many sultans wielded absolute power through heavenly mandates reflected in their title, the "Shadow of God on Earth".

Throughout much of European history, the divine right of kings was the theological justification for absolute monarchy. Many European monarchs, such as those of Russia, claimed supreme autocratic power by divine right, and that their subjects had no rights to limit their power. James VI of Scotland (later also James I of England) and his son Charles I of Scotland and England tried to import this principle. Charles I's attempt to enforce episcopal polity on the Church of Scotland led to rebellion by the Covenanters and the Bishops' Wars, then fears that Charles I was attempting to establish absolutist government along European lines was a major cause of the English Civil War, despite the fact that he did rule this way for 11 years starting in 1629, after dissolving the Parliament of England for a time. By the 19th century, the Divine Right was regarded as an obsolete theory in most countries in the Western world, except in Russia where it was still given credence as the official justification for the Tsar's power until February Revolution in 1917.

There is a considerable variety of opinion by historians on the extent of absolutism among European monarchs. Some, such as Perry Anderson, argue that quite a few monarchs achieved levels of absolutist control over their states, while historians such as Roger Mettam dispute the very concept of absolutism. In general, historians who disagree with the appellation of "absolutism" argue that most monarchs labeled as "absolutist" exerted no greater power over their subjects than any other "non-absolutist" rulers, and these historians tend to emphasize the differences between the absolutist rhetoric of monarchs and the realities of the effective use of power by these absolute monarchs. Renaissance historian William Bouwsma summed up this contradiction:
Though some historians doubt if he truly had, Louis XIV of France (1638–1715) is often said to have proclaimed "L'état, c'est moi" ("I am the State!"). Although often criticized for his extravagances, such as the Palace of Versailles, he reigned over France for a long period, and some historians consider him a successful absolute monarch. More recently, revisionist historians have questioned whether Louis' reign should be considered 'absolute', given the reality of the balance of power between the monarch and the nobility.

The King of France concentrated in his person legislative, executive, and judicial powers. He was the supreme judicial authority. He could condemn men to death without the right of appeal. It was both his duty to punish offenses and stop them from being committed. From his judicial authority followed his power both to make laws and to annul them.

One of his steps in creating an absolute monarchy in France was to build the Palace of Versailles, where he lived with many of his nobles and other important people, in order to control and watch over them.

Absolutism was underpinned by a written constitution for the first time in Europe in 1665 "Kongeloven ("King's Law")" of Denmark-Norway, which ordered that the Monarch "shall from this day forth be revered and considered the most perfect and supreme person on the Earth by all his subjects, standing above all human laws and having no judge above his person, neither in spiritual nor temporal matters, except God alone". This law consequently authorized the king to abolish all other centers of power. Most important was the abolition of the Council of the Realm.

In Brandenburg-Prussia, the concept of absolute monarch took a notable turn from the above with its emphasis on the monarch as the "first servant of the state", but it also echoed many of the important characteristics of Absolutism. Frederick William (r. 1640–1688), known as the Great Elector, used the uncertainties of the final stages of the Thirty Years' War to consolidate his territories into the dominant kingdom in northern Germany, whilst increasing his power over his subjects. His actions largely originated the militaristic streak of the Hohenzollern.

In 1653 the Diet of Brandenburg met for the last time and gave Frederick William the power to raise taxes without its consent, a strong indicator of absolutism. Frederick William enjoyed support from the nobles, who enabled the Great Elector to undermine the Diet and other representative assemblies. The leading families saw their future in cooperation with the central government and worked to establish absolutist power.

The most significant indicator of the nobles' success was the establishment of two tax rates – one for the cities and the other for the countryside – to the great advantage of the latter, which the nobles ruled. The nobles served in the upper levels of the elector's army and bureaucracy, but they also won new prosperity for themselves. The support of the Elector enabled the imposition of serfdom and the consolidation of land holdings into vast estates which provided for their wealth.

They became known as Junkers (from the German for young lord, "junger Herr"). Frederick William faced resistance from representative assemblies and long-independent cities in his realm. City leaders often revolted at the imposition of Electorate authority. The last notable effort was the uprising of the city of Königsberg which allied with the Estates General of Prussia to refuse to pay taxes. Frederick William crushed this revolt in 1662, by marching into the city with thousands of troops. A similar approach was used with the towns of Cleves.

Until 1905 the Tsars and Emperors of Russia governed as absolute monarchs. Peter I the Great reduced the power of the Russian nobility and strengthened the central power of the monarch, establishing a bureaucracy and a police state. This tradition of absolutism, known as Tsarist autocracy, was expanded by Catherine II the Great and her descendants. Although Alexander II made some reforms and established an independent judicial system, Russia did not have a representative assembly or a constitution until the 1905 Revolution. However, the concept of absolutism was so ingrained in Russia that the Russian Constitution of 1906 still described the monarch as an autocrat. Russia became the last European country (excluding Vatican City) to abolish absolutism, and it was the only one to do so as late as the 20th century (the Ottoman Empire drafted its first constitution in 1877).

The form of government instituted in Sweden under King Charles XI and passed on to his son, Charles XII is commonly referred to as absolute monarchy; however, the Swedish monarch was never absolute in the sense that he wielded arbitrary power. The monarch still ruled under the law and could only legislate in agreement with the Riksdag of the Estates; rather, the absolutism introduced was the monarch's ability to run the government unfettered by the privy council, contrary to earlier practice. The absolute rule of Charles XI was instituted by the crown and the Riksdag in order to carry out the Great Reduction which would have been made impossible by the privy council which comprised the high nobility. After the death of Charles XII in 1718, the system of absolute rule was largely blamed for the ruination of the realm in the Great Northern War, and the reaction tipped the balance of power to the other extreme end of the spectrum, ushering in the Age of Liberty. After half a century of largely unrestricted parliamentary rule proved just as ruinous, King Gustav III seized back royal power in the coup d'état of 1772, and later once again abolished the privy council under the Union and Security Act in 1789, which, in turn, was rendered void in 1809 when Gustav IV Adolf was deposed in a coup and the constitution of 1809 was put in its place. The years between 1789 and 1809, then, are also referred to as a period of absolute monarchy.

The popularity of the notion of absolute monarchy declined substantially after the American Revolution and the French Revolution, which promoted theories of government based on popular sovereignty.

Many nations formerly with absolute monarchies, such as Jordan, Kuwait and Morocco, have moved towards constitutional monarchy, although in some cases the monarch retains tremendous power, to the point that the parliament's influence on political life is negligible.

In Bhutan, the government moved from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy following planned parliamentary elections to the Tshogdu in 2003, and the election of a National Assembly in 2008. Nepal had several swings between constitutional rule and direct rule related to the Nepalese Civil War, the Maoist insurgency, and the 2001 Nepalese royal massacre, with the Nepalese monarchy being abolished on May 28, 2008. In Tonga, the King had majority control of the Legislative Assembly until 2010.

On the other hand, Liechtenstein has moved towards expanding the power of the monarch: the Prince of Liechtenstein was given expanded powers after a referendum amending the Constitution of Liechtenstein in 2003, which led the BBC to describe the prince as an "absolute monarch again".

The ruling Kim family of North Korea (Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un) has been described as a "de facto" absolute monarchy or "hereditary dictatorship". In 2013, Clause 2 of Article 10 of the new edited Ten Fundamental Principles of the Korean Workers' Party states that the party and revolution must be carried "eternally" by the "Baekdu (Kim's) bloodline".

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, and according to the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia adopted by royal decree in 1992, the king must comply with Shari'a (Islamic law) and the Qur'an. The Qur'an and the corpus of Sunnah (traditions of the Islamic prophet, Muhammad) are declared to be the Kingdom's constitution, but no written modern constitution has ever been written for Saudi Arabia, which remains one of two Arab nations where no national elections have ever taken place since its founding, with the other being Qatar. No political parties or national elections are permitted and according to "The Economist's" 2010 Democracy Index, the Saudi government is the seventh most authoritarian regime from among the 167 countries rated.

Anthropology, sociology, and ethology as well as various other disciplines such as political science attempt to explain the rise of absolute monarchy ranging from extrapolation generally, to certain Marxist explanations in terms of the class struggle as the underlying dynamic of human historical development generally and absolute monarchy in particular.

In the 17th century, French legal theorist Jean Domat defended the concept of absolute monarchy in works such as ""On Social Order and Absolute Monarchy"", citing absolute monarchy as preserving natural order as God intended.

The politics of Jordan takes place in a framework of a parliamentary monarchy, whereby the Prime Minister of Jordan is head of government, and of a multi-party system. Jordan is a constitutional monarchy based on the constitution promulgated on January 8, 1952. The king exercises his power through the government he appoints which is responsible before the Parliament.

Politics of Jordan

King Abdullah has been sovereign since the death of his father in 1999. Omar Razzaz has been Prime Minister since 4 June 2018.

The Constitution of Jordan vests executive authority in the king and in his cabinet. The king signs, executes, and vetoes all laws. The king may also suspend or dissolve parliament, and shorten or lengthen the term of session. A veto by the king may be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses of parliament at his discretion, most recently in November 2009. The king appoints and may dismiss all judges by decree, approves amendments to the constitution after passing by both parliaments, declares war and acts as the supreme leader of the armed forces. Cabinet decisions, court judgments, and the national currency are issued in his name. The Cabinet, led by a prime minister, was formerly appointed by the king, but following the 2011 Jordanian protests, King Abdullah agreed to an elected cabinet. The cabinet is responsible to the Chamber of Deputies on matters of general policy; a two-thirds vote of "no confidence" by the Chamber can force the cabinet to resign.

Legislative power rests in the bicameral National Assembly. The National Assembly ("Majlis al-Umma") has two chambers. The Chamber of Deputies ("Majlis al-Nuwaab") has 130 members, elected for a four-year terms in single-seat constituencies with 15 seats reserved for women by a special electoral college. In addition nine seats are reserved for Christians and three for Chechens/Circassians. While the Chamber of Deputies is elected by the people, its main legislative abilities are limited to approving, rejecting, or amending legislation with little power to initiate laws. The Assembly of Senators ("Majlis al-Aayan") has 65 members appointed by the King for a four-year term. The Assembly of Senators is responsible to the Chamber of Deputies and can be removed by a "vote of no confidence".

Political factions or blocs in the Jordanian parliament change with each parliamentary election and typically involve one of the following affiliations; a democratic Marxist/Socialist faction, a mainstream liberal faction, a moderate-pragmatic faction, a mainstream conservative faction, and an extreme conservative faction (such as the Islamic Action Front).

The Jordanian Chamber of Deputies is known for brawls between its members, including acts of violence and the use of weapons. In September 2013 Representative Talal al-Sharif tried to shoot one of his colleagues with an assault rifle while at the parliamentary premises.

The judiciary is completely independent from the other two branches of the government. The constitution provides for three categories of courts—civil (in this case meaning "regular"), religious, and special. Regular courts consist of both civil and criminal varieties at the first level—First Instance or Conciliation Courts, second level—Appelette or Appeals Courts, and the Cassation Court which is the highest judicial authority in the kingdom. There are two types of religious courts: Sharia courts which enforce the provisions of Islamic law and civil status, and tribunals of other religious communities officially recognized in Jordan.

King Hussein ruled Jordan from 1953 to 1999, surviving a number of challenges to his rule, drawing on the loyalty of his military, and serving as a symbol of unity and stability for both the Jordanians and Palestinian communities in Jordan. King Hussein ended martial law in 1989 and ended suspension on political parties that was initiated following the loss of the West Bank to Israel and in order to preserve the status quo in Jordan. In 1989 and 1993, Jordan held free and fair parliamentary elections. Controversial changes in the election law led Islamist parties to boycott the 1997, 2011 and 2013 elections.

King Abdullah II succeeded his father Hussein following the latter's death in February 1999. Abdullah moved quickly to reaffirm Jordan's peace treaty with Israel and its relations with the United States. Abdullah, during the first year in power, refocused the government's agenda on economic reform.

Jordan's continuing structural economic difficulties, burgeoning population, and more open political environment led to the emergence of a variety of political parties. Moving toward greater independence, Jordan's parliament has investigated corruption charges against several regime figures and has become the major forum in which differing political views, including those of political Islamists, are expressed.

On February 1, 2012, it was announced that King Abdullah had dismissed his government. This has been interpreted as a pre-emptive move in the context of the Tunisian Jasmine Revolution and unfolding events in nearby Egypt.

King Abdullah II and the Jordanian Government began the process of decentralization, with the Madaba governorate as the pilot project, on the regional level dividing the nation into three regions: North, Central, and South. The Greater Amman Municipality will be excluded from the plan but it will set up a similar decentralization process. Each region will have an elected council that will handle the political, social, legal, and economic affairs of its area. This decentralization process is part of Jordan's Democratization Program.

Jordan ranked 47th out of 180 nations in the Corruption Perceptions Index. The Constitution of Jordan states that no member of Parliament can have any financial or business dealings with the government and no member of the royal family can be in the government. However, corruption remains a problem in Jordan despite progress. Corruption cases are examined by the Anti-Corruption Commission and then referred to the judiciary for legal action. Corruption in Jordan takes the form of nepotism, favouritism, and bribery.

Administratively, Jordan is divided into twelve governorates ("muhafazat", singular—"muhafazah"), each headed by a governor appointed by the king. They are the sole authorities for all government departments and development projects in their respective areas:

ABEDA, ACC, AFESD, AL, AMF, CAEU, CCC, CTBTO, EBRD, ESCWA, FAO, G-77, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICC, ICFTU, ICRM, IDA, IDB, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, ILO, IMF, IMO, Intelsat, Interpol, IOC, IOM (observer), ISO (correspondent), ITU, NAM, OIC, OPCW, OSCE (partner), PCA, UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNIDO, UNMIBH, UNMIK, UNMOP, UNMOT, UNOMIG, UNRWA, UNTAET, UNWTO, UPU, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WTO, WTrO

Compared to other Arab monarchies, Jordan is relatively pluralistic, with a tolerance for political and social opposition. Jordan a member of international treaties obliging it to hold regular elections with appropriate preparation and implementation, and that oblige it to respect the right to vote, the right to be elected and participate in public affairs, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of movement, and freedom of opinion. After parliament is dissolved, the constitution mandates elections be held within four months. Nonetheless, the monarchy retains ultimate political control, as it is imbued with wide executive and legislative authority, leading the King’s royal court and advisers exercising more power than parliament. While in theory the military and General Intelligence Directorate (GID, a state security body) report to parliament, in practice they report to the monarchy. Important fields of policy, such as foreign relations, economic policy, and internal security are controlled by the King and royal advisors.

Elections in Jordan

Elections in Jordan are for the lower house, known as the House of Representatives, of the bicameral parliament of Jordan, as well as for local elections. They take place within a political system where the King has extensive legislative and executive powers, retaining ultimate political control. The Prime Minister is selected by the King, the PM is then free to choose his own Cabinet. The parliament has quotas: three seats for Circassians and Chechens, nine for Christians and fifteen for women. The electoral system favours rural tribes and those of East Bank origin over urban areas that are primarily inhabited by those of Palestinian descent.

The first general election was held during the Emirate of Transjordan in 1929. Even after Jordan gained independence in 1946, British influence caused elections to be held under block voting. Just three months into an elected government experiment in 1956, the former King Hussein then dismissed that government, declaring martial law and banning political parties. This lasted until general elections were reintroduced in 1989 after unrest over price hikes spread in southern Jordan. The 1989 general election under block voting saw opposition Islamist parties win 22 out of 80 seats in the House of Representatives. The electoral system was then changed in 1992 to a single non-transferable vote system, which became known as “one-man one-vote”, in order to suppress Islamist representation. Opposition parties back then including the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Action Front (IAF) often boycotted elections due to the new law, even though political parties were relegalized and martial law was lifted.

The 2011–12 Jordanian protests that occurred as part of the Arab Spring led to calls for political reform. Some reforms were introduced prior to the 2013 general election, which included the creation of an Independent Electoral Commission. The changes were however deemed insufficient by many opposition parties, and they continued their boycott. Large-scale reforms were put into place for the 2016 general election and the 2017 local elections. Opposition parties including the IAF have ended their boycott of the elections in 2016 after proportional representation was introduced, and together with their allies managed to win 16 seats out of 130, after they were expecting 20-30 seats. Proportional representation is seen as the first step toward establishing parliamentary governments in which parliamentary blocs, instead of the king, choose the prime minister. However, the underdevelopment of political parties in Jordan have slowed down such moves. The latest general and local elections were considered to be fair and transparent by several independent international observers.

The elected lower house of parliament is further constrained by an upper house of equal legislative responsibility whose members are chosen by the King. While the lower house can initiate legislation, the legislation must then be approved by the senate and the King. If the King returns the law unapproved, it must gain approval from two-thirds of both the house and the senate to go into effect. The King appoints a Prime Minister and Cabinet from the lower house, but is not required to consult parliament on his choice or choose based on the largest parties. Cabinet reshuffles within a single parliament can be frequent, and aside from a way to reward loyal MPs they are often used to counter public dissent, as the King can shift blame for issues onto the previous Cabinet while appearing above politics. Similarly, the King can dissolve parliament before the end of its term if he desires early elections, or suspend parliament entirely and rule by decree, which occurred twice in the 21st century, from 2001 to 2003 and 2009 to 2010. Outside of suspension, elections are held within four months of the dissolution of the previous parliament.

Even after legalisation in 1992, political parties have long been weak, an intentional effect of the electoral system. They continue to have low membership, partly due to lingering fear of government discrimination of those holding a party membership. Instead, tribes have become effective political actors, playing roles traditionally associated with political parties, such as holding their own primaries and mobilising voters through their own electoral lists. Elections are therefore often based on patronage rather than politics, with votes falling along tribal or family lines. Politics mirrors the demographic split between those of Palestinian origin and those of East Bank origin. The state is dominated by East Bankers and they form the core of monarchical support, whereas Jordanian Palestinians have little political representation and a systematically discriminated against.

Electoral districts are delimited by the Cabinet upon the recommendation of the ministry of Interior. These constituencies followed administrative boundaries with some minor changes. Each constituency is unreflective of the populations within them. For example, in the 2013 elections the Amman government had 98,936 people per seat, whereas the Tafileh government had just 25,350. Irbid’s seventh district had 48,701 registered voters leading to the winning candidate having 11,624 votes, whereas Ma’an’s second district had just 6,733 registered voters and was won by a candidate who garnered only 1,648 votes. This gerrymandering means that often tribal representatives with local concerns rather than national platforms.

As the election results are based on patronage rather than political alignment, parliaments is often ineffectual. The lack of political parties leads to it being very fractured, impeding reform. Elections are frequently manipulated by the state, from selective support of candidates with funding and media access, to in some cases direct electoral fraud through manipulating votes or manipulating turnout. This is frequently to the detriment of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm in Jordan, the Islamic Action Front. Suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood occurs alongside fear of electoral reform giving Palestinians increased political representation, as the IAF is seen as being supported by many Palestinians.

The constraints and restrictions on the power of elected officials imposed by unelected officials has caused public apathy towards parliament. The Jordanian electorate however is largely aware of other electoral options and there is not much public discussion of flaws in the electoral system. While the government has frequently made rhetoric about improving the democratic system, this rhetoric far outstrips any actions it takes.

Jordan’s constitution has no provision guaranteeing universal suffrage. Article 6 prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race and language, but notably makes no provisions for gender. Nonetheless, women obtained the right to vote in 1974, and quotas for parliamentary participation were introduced in 2003 and have increased since then, and currently each of the 12 governorates has one reserved seat, and each of the three “badia” electoral areas also has one, for a total of 15. Women can be elected to all public offices, and since the turn of the century there have regularly been female members of Cabinet. In 2010 a female was appointed attorney-general for the first time. However, despite the affirmative action utilised through the quota system, cultural issues are thought to impede the independence of women who vote, and some tribal primaries continue to hold male-only votes. Some smaller tribes who cannot reliably win normal seats also take advantage of the quota by nominating female representatives. Female candidates are thus often controlled by the tribes supporting them.

Some ethnic and religious minorities have quotas in parliament as well, although these minorities must run in their allocated seats if they wish to enter parliament. Those of Circassian and Chechen descent share three allocated seats, while Christians are allocated nine seats. Both are over-representations in parliament compared to their presence in the overall population. Christians are often appointed to Cabinet ministerial positions, although by practice they do not achieve the highest positions such as Prime Minister and Head Military Commander. Bedouins have three special “badia” electorates, each of which provides three members to parliament, including one woman per badia. The badia divide the country into northern, central, and southern zones, but the ability to vote in these districts is determined not only by location but also by tribal membership, with only members of approved tribes able to vote in these electorates.

The age of suffrage is 18. Those who are bankrupt or mentally disabled are not allowed to vote, and there have historically been no provisions to help absentee or special needs voters. Employees of the armed forces, state security services, public security services, Gendarmie, and Civil Defence forces cannot vote during their employment. Registration rules, which are determined by the Independent Electoral Committee (IEC), mandate registration in the district of residence, or in the district where a father or grandfather was born. An exception exists for Circassians, Chechens, and Christians, who may register in a neighbouring district if they reside in a district which lacks a seat for their quota. In the 2013 elections, there was an overall 400,000 voters who registered in districts they did not reside in.

Under a constitution set up in 1952, political parties were allowed, and a Political Parties Law was passed in 1955 affirming this, although they had to register and be approved by the government. No majorities were elected, and this period produced coalition governments. However, upon the imposition of martial law in 1957 electoral activities and parties were banned. After this point party activity continued underground, and was expressed through other forms such as labour unions and professional organisations. Women received the right to vote and stand for office in 1974, although martial law was still in effect. A woman was first appointed to Cabinet in 1976, although during the 20th century participation was rare and mostly symbolic, with often just a token woman included.

The monarchy's firm control over the political process was maintained until an economic crash in the late 1980s caused protests, even among East Bankers. This prompted an unprecedented political and social liberalisation, revoking martial law and holding an election. The 1989 election was run using block voting, with voters casting a number of votes equal to the number of representatives of their district, with the candidates with the highest votes in each district entering parliament. This system was much the same as the one that had been used during the British mandate. There were 20 constituencies, although they were not evenly distributed by population. Eight seats were set aside for Christians, and three for Cicassians and Chechens.

While political parties remained banned, many candidates were clearly affiliated with various groups, such as the monarchy and the Muslim Brotherhood. Out of the 80 seas, the majority were won by opposition parties, including Islamists, secular leftists, and pan-Arab nationalists. This was not representative of the percentage of the vote, with 20% of votes for the Muslim Brotherhood winning 30% of the seats, and the 16% of seats won by independent Islamists similarly over-representative. The 60% of votes that went to pro-monarchy candidates won only 40% of the seats. This was in part due to the better organisation of Islamists, despite the lack of official party structures. Despite this, the resultant parliament is viewed more favourably with the public than any subsequent parliaments have been.

In order to suppress future Islamist votes, King Hussein instituted a new system prior to the 1993 elections. However, in 1992 he introduced a new Political Parties Law, allowing political parties to register with the Ministry of Interior, and providing recourse for judicial challenge if party formation is denied. Alongside new parties, many parties that had existed before the imposition of martial law reformed. The Muslim Brotherhood created a Jordanian political wing, registering the Islamic Action Front as their political party.

Under the new system, the country was divided into 45 electoral districts, again providing disproportionate influence to rural East Bank communities while side-lining urban and Palestinian areas. Voting was held under a single non-transferable vote rule, where each voter has one vote even in multi-member districts. This weakened political parties as if they competed in multi-member districts with multiple candidates they risked diluting their vote between candidates and thus not winning any seats, whereas restricting the number of candidates they ran meant restricting the total number of seats they could possibly win. Political parties were also weak due to low membership, caused by public fear of discrimination against party members.

The new electoral system the parties competed in became derisively known as the “one-man one-vote” system in Jordan, despite that phrase usually referring to a positive tenet of democracy. While the representation in parliament better lined up with voting proportions, the system was seen as restricting voter choice. As well as weakening parties it strengthened tribalism and sub-national identities, making elections local rather than national. Well-connected local individuals were able to gain electoral heft at the expense of national parties, and most independent MPs were conservative members of the state. Candidacies were often announced well before election campaigns officially began.

The government was keen to further encourage female participation in politics, placing 99 women in the municipal committees that organised the 1994 local elections, leading to 20 women standing, one of whom won a mayoralty and nine others who won local council seats. By 2003 there was at least one woman in each municipal council.

The new system was unpopular with political parties, and 11 parties led by the IAF boycotted the 1997 national elections. Changes prior to the intended 2001 elections led to an increase in MP numbers to 110. Although parliament was dismissed in June 2011 in line with its 4-year mandate, elections were delayed by the King until 2003. By 2003 there were 31 licensed political parties, which fell into four broad groups: Islamist, leftist, Arab nationalist, and centrist Jordanian nationalists. Despite these party memberships, candidates often still ran as independents, for fear of alienating tribal votes. The 2003 election saw the introduction of a quota for women in addition to the others of six of the 110 seats. These six seats would be allocated by a special panel if no women were elected in normal seats, which turned out to be the case. It also saw the lowering of the voting age to 18. The IAF held another partial boycott during the 2003 elections. A 2007 law mandated political parties have at least 500 members in at least 5 of Jordan’s governorates, invalidating the existence of 22 political parties. The IAF however decided to participate in the 2007 elections, which was marred by reports of electoral fraud.

King Abdullah II dissolved parliament in 2009, halfway into its four-year term. On 20 May 2010 he approved a new electoral law, which stated that the election would be overseen by judges and punishing those buying and selling votes. It raised the number of seats to 120, and upped the quota for women to 12. Four of the new seats were placed in urban areas, a move designed to reduce the pressure for electoral reform. While maintaining the basics of one-man one-vote, the new law changed how elections worked in multi-member districts. It divided them into multiple contiguous subdistricts, determined not by geography but by voter choice. Candidates chose which virtual subdistrict they would run in, and voters voted in the subdistrict of their choice. The government claimed it would reduce tribalisms, but analysts noted it would worsen the situation, with candidates dividing subdistricts between them prior to the elections. Thus insider candidates with privileged access to government had an advantage, although some felt that given their organisation Islamists may have benefitted to a slight extent. Additionally, voter mobilisation was impeded by the virtual districts.

Nonetheless, the changes led to the November 2010 elections being boycotted by a wide range of parties led by the IAF. Despite this the government attempted to bolster the election’s legitimacy. It introduced computer-based monitoring of results, and invited international monitors who felt it had been free of direct manipulation, unlike previous elections, although they noted there was no independent electoral commission. The government also launched a large campaign to increase voter turnout, although it only reported a turnout of 53%, and local NGOs estimated it to be as low as 40%. The low turnout was exacerbated by differences in turnout between different demographic groups, with nadirs of 20% in urban Palestinian districts, and highs of 80% in some rural areas. As a result, only 10% of MPs represented Palestinians. 2010 saw one female MP elected in an ordinary seat, in addition to those elected under quotas. Less than half of the public had confidence in the resultant parliament.

Grievances brought on by two decades of political and social stagnation, and in some cases backsliding on reforms, emerged as part of the wider protests during the Arab Spring. Protests spread beyond traditional opposition groups to the usually loyal East Bank communities. Alongside protests caused by economic hardship, calls emerged for greater political reform and reforms of the state security sector, although the more extreme calls, such as for an overthrow of the monarchy, never obtained wide public support. Unrest led to King Abdullah II to frequently change government, with five prime ministers being in power over the two years subsequent to the beginning of the protests.

In response, the King promised reforms and a move towards constitutional monarchy, and in June 2011 established a 52-member National Dialogue Committee and a 10-member Constitutional Review Council. While both were mostly full of royal loyalists, they did propose changes. In September 2011, the Council proposed 42 constitutional amendments, including ones establishing an Independent Electoral Committee. The King requested that political parties join in the National Dialogue Committee, and while many opposition parties did the IAF refused to. The Committee recommended replacing one-man one-vote with proportional representation (PR) among electorates based on governorates, creating 115 PR seats at governorate levels and 15 at national levels, as well as increasing the quota for women and maintaining the other quotas.
Institutional reluctance to reform was compounded by disagreements among reformists on the correct path forward, as well as caution regarding radical change due to the deteriorating situations in other Arab Spring affected countries, especially considering pre-existing East Bank-Palestinian domestic tensions. A July 2012 law banned the formation of political parties on the basis of religion. A new election law in 2012 expanded parliament to 150 members while keeping the same ethnic and religious seat quotas. It increased the woman’s quota by three by mandating that one MP from each Bedouin badia constituency be a woman, maintaining the women’s quota at 10% of overall seats. It created a mixed-electoral system by making 27 of the 150 seats elected on a proportional basis based on nationwide lists, while the others remained elected through one-man one-vote, 18 in single-member districts and 90 in multi-member districts. The King also promised to consult parliament when choosing a cabinet. Other recommendations however, such as a more substantial move to PR, were ignored. This, combined with the constitutional changes being mostly cosmetic, meant once Parliament was dissolved on 4 October 2013, the IAF and other opposition parties decided to boycott the elections. Despite this, the government tried heavily to encourage participation and campaigning, extending registration past the allotted time, and turning a blind eye to campaign violations such as the use of state symbols and images of the king and campaigning beyond the official deadline of midnight of election day in close proximity to polling stations.

The addition of PR seats was expected to slightly rectify the underrepresentation of Palestinian voters. Many new parties were contested just to contest these seats, with a final total of 61 registered for the election. Many however lacked distinct political character. Each voter had two votes, one within their electoral district, and one for the 27 national-level seats.

The new Independent Electoral Commission was regarded as having improved electoral administration, promoting electoral transparency and ensuring ballot secrecy. The PR seats were very fractured, with the largest party being the Islamic Centrist Party which received only 114,458 (8.89%) votes leading to three votes. 18 women were elected in 2013, 15 from the quotas, two as the head of PR lists, and one as a district candidate. In spite of the changes, a survey found 53% of respondents to not find the elections to be fair.

More reforms were touted in 2015, with the government promising the end of one-man one-vote. Furthermore, the government expressed that all licensed parties were part of Jordan’s political fabric, explicitly mentioning the IAF. The final reforms were proposed on 31 August, and were seen as very similar to the popularly remembered 1989 elections. The new system reduced the seats to 130 while keeping all quotas at the same numbers. It fully eliminated one-man one-vote, restoring the block system whereby voters had votes equal to the number of seats in their district. In addition, they each also have a single vote for a multi-member party list. This was not the case in the 1989 elections, and reflected the PR experiment from the 2013 elections. Re-elections will be held in the case of ties.

All candidates will run as members of lists, with open list PR used to determine all seats falling outside of quotas. For the Circassian/Chechen and Christian seats, the seat is given to the highest candidate from within those groups. The female quota seats however are assigned to women who would not otherwise be elected. There are 23 electoral districts: five in the Amman government, four in the Irbid governorate, two in the Zarqa governorate, one each for the other nine governorates, and three badia districts for the Bedouin quotas. The Circassian/Chechen and Christian quotas were included among seats assigned within the governorate districts. The female quota is divided so that there is one seat in each governorate, and one in each badia. While the division of population between districts remains imperfect, it was an improvement upon previous elections.

After minor changes in both houses, the new law was approved by the King on 13 March 2016. Both government and opposition groups hailed the changes as progressive. This included the IAF, which hailed the changed as positive. Democracy advocates were pleased that the changes made the law very similar to the 1989 law, which had long been held in high regard. The election is set for 20 September 2016, and will again be run by the IEC, who are providing for the first time provisions for deaf and blind voters.

There was some controversy over the reforms. Tribal leaders opposed them as they reduced their influence, and there was fear of increased influence in Palestinians through the IAF through the increasing through still unequal representation of urban areas. In 2015 internal divisions erupted within the Muslim Brotherhood, tacitly encouraged by the government. One splinter group, known as the Muslim Brotherhood Association, took advantage of the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood was affiliated with its Egyptian founding group rather than being registered as a Jordanian organisation, registering as the official Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan. The Muslim Brotherhood Association, which emphasises its Jordanian identity, was given official status in March 2015. Subsequent internal dissent among the original Muslim Brotherhood led to the resignation of hundreds of members. Two other splinter groups have also broken away from the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood Association leveraged its official status to launch lawsuits claiming ownership of Muslim Brotherhood property, and in April 2016 the lawsuits were decided in the favour of the Association, leading them to seizing control of a wide swathe of Muslim Brotherhood property. The government also prevented a celebration of the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The IAF, despite being the political wing of the original and now-illegal Muslim Brotherhood, is registered as a Jordanian organisation and remains legal. Despite the fractures in the Muslim Brotherhood the IAF decided to end its boycott and compete in the 2016 elections after overwhelming support to do so in an internal vote, with 76% of members supporting participating in the election. 17% of members still opposed participation without substantial limitations to the King’s constitutional powers. The government wants the IAF to participate to enhance the election’s legitimacy in western eyes. It is thought that government pressure and the fear of obscurity led to IAF participation, and that they may be attempting to emulate the gains of elected Islamist parties in Tunisia and Morocco who co-operated with their governments, while avoiding suppression similar to that occurring in Egypt.

Prior to 2013, elections were run by the Ministry of Interior. Constitutional amendments created Article 67, which provided for the creation of an Independent Electoral Commission (IEC). The IEC is mandated to manage and supervise parliamentary elections, and may be asked by government to supervise other elections as needed. It was established with a five-member board which included one chairperson. These members are appointed for 6-year non-renewable terms. While its budget is controlled by the government, it is otherwise legally and administratively independent.

Upon registering for the 2013 vote, voters received a registration card which was required alongside their national identity card in order to vote. This was done to prevent electoral fraud, as national identity cards were seen as more easily forged. In addition, polling stations were assigned when registering, to guard against multiple voting, as prior to 2013 voting booths were chosen by voters on the day. The election had 4,069 polling stations. 2,282,182 people, 70% of the eligible population, registered for the 2013 elections, of which 1,178,864 (51.9%) were women. Unlike previous years, the 2013 registrations were viewed as accurate. Final turnout was 56.6%.

A process known as family registration allowed voters to designate someone else to pick up their electoral card. This created fears of voting fraud, as it led to some registering for others without their consent, giving them the ability to ransom or sell voting cards. The IEC reported that 62% of cards were picked up by proxy, while other reports put the percentage as high as 85%. In part, vote-buying was encouraged by voter cynicism towards parliament. The IEC took action and caused the arrest of alleged vote-buyers shortly before the election, although this action was criticised as insufficient, and three of those arrested went on to win parliamentary seats that grant them immunity to prosecution. Registration became automatic based on lists provided by the Civil Service and Passport Division for the 2016 election.

Registering as a candidate in 2013 required a 500 dinar fee. Some municipalities further required deposits to ensure candidates cleaned up campaigning materials after the election, although this was not general enforced. In addition to registering political parties, individuals could register their own lists for PR constituencies, so long as they included at least nine individuals. This opened the lists to abuse from wealthy individuals, who would put themselves at the top of lists and pay others to be in their lists, and contributed to fractured national results.

The IEC was created only shortly before the 2013 elections, and had only 8-months to prepare for it. It introduced pre-printed ballot cards designed to conform to international standards. Prior to this, voters needed to write down their preferred candidate’s names. This meant illiterate voters could not vote in secret, as they had to ask voting staff to write down their vote, risking voting fraud. The new ballots also had enhanced security features to help ensure legitimacy. The IEC also introduced indelible ink, and for the first time all election staff, 32,000 at this election, were trained. Votes were counted four separate times to allow cross-checking, with almost 400 international observers.

There were procedural misunderstandings and delays in the 2013 elections, but overall it ran smoothly. Election results were updated continuously and transparently after the election was carried out, with the final results being posted on 28 January, five days after voting. International observers widely regarded the IEC as being successful and an impartial arbiter of results.

As a developing constitutional monarchy, Jordan has survived the trials and tribulations of Middle Eastern politics. The Jordanian public has experienced limited democracy since gaining independence in 1946 however the population has not suffered as others have under dictatorships imposed by some Arab regimes. The 1952 Constitution provided for citizens of Jordan to form and join political parties. Such rights were suspended in 1967 when a state of emergency was declared and martial law and suspension of Parliament, continuing until it was repealed in 1989.

Parliament of Jordan

The Parliament of Jordan ( ') is the bicameral Jordanian national assembly. Established by the 1952 Constitution, the legislature consists of two houses: the Senate ("Majlis Al-Aayan") and the House of Representatives ("Majlis Al-Nuwaab").

The Senate has 65 members, all of whom are directly appointed by the King, while the House of Representatives has 130 elected members, with nine seats reserved for Christians, three are for Circassian and Chechen minorities, and fifteen for women. The members of both houses serve for four-year terms.

In 1988 King Hussein cut political ties with the West Bank following the Israeli occupation. Subsequently, civil unrest followed with Prime Minister al-Rifa’i alleged to have used heavy-handed tactics against the population which resulted in riots in April 1989. After the riots had subsided the King fired al-Rifa’i and announced elections for later that year. The King’s action to re-convene parliament elections was considered a significant move forward in enabling the Jordanian public to have greater freedoms and democracy, this has been labelled by the think tank Freedom House as, “the Arab World's most promising experiment in political liberalization and reform”.

The resumption of the parliamentary election was reinforced by new laws governing the media and publishing as well as fewer restrictions on freedoms of expression. Following the legalization of political parties in 1992, 1993 saw the first multi-party elections held since 1956. The country is now one of the most politically open in the Middle East permitting opposition parties such as the Islamic Action Front (IAF), the political wing of the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood. The influence of the IAF significantly reduced in 2007 when their parliamentary representation fell from seventeen to six. The IAF boycotted the 2011 and 2013 elections in protest of the one voice electoral system. The Monarch still holds the true levers of power, appointing members of the House of Senate and has the right to replace the prime minister, a step that King Abdullah II of Jordan took in April 2005.

It has been argued that the influence of tribalism in determining Parliament election results in Jordan should not be overlooked; it is stronger than political affiliations. Tribal identity has a strong influence over Jordanian life: “…identities remain the primary driving forces of decision making at the level of the individual, the community, and the state”.

In 2016, the King of Jordan dissolved the parliament, and named Hani Al-Mulki as Prime Minister.

Both houses initiate debates and vote on legislation. Proposals are referred by the Prime Minister to the House of Representatives where they are either accepted, amended or rejected. Every proposal is referred to a committee of the lower house for consideration. If it is approved then it is referred to the government to draft in the form of a bill and submit it to the House of Representatives. If approved by this House, it is passed onto the Senate for debate and a vote. If the Senate gives its approval then the King can either grant consent or refuse. In this case the bill is passed back to the House of Deputies where the review and voting process is repeated. If both houses pass the bill by a two-thirds majority it becomes an Act of Parliament overriding the King’s veto. Article 95 of the Constitution empowers both houses to submit legislation to the government in the form of a draft law.

The Constitution does not provide a strong system of checks and balances within which the Jordanian Parliament can assert its role in relationship to the Monarch. During the suspension of Parliament between 2001 and 2003, the scope of King Abdullah II’s power was demonstrated with the passing of 110 temporary laws. Two of such laws dealt with election law and were created to reduce the power of Parliament.

Senators have terms of four years and are appointed by the King and can be reappointed. Prospective Senators must be at least forty years old and have held senior positions in either the government or military. Appointed senators have included former prime ministers and members of the House of Representatives. Deputies are elected to serve a four-year term. Deputy candidates must be older than thirty five and cannot be related to the king and must not have any financial interests in governmental contracts.

Despite the reforms of 1989, multi-party politics has yet to develop in Jordan. The only political party that plays a role in the legislature is the Islamic Action Front (IAF). Political parties can be seen to represent four sections: Islamists, leftists, Arab nationalists and conservative. There are 34 registered political parties in Jordan including the Jordanian Arab Democratic Party, Jordanian Socialist Party, Muslim Centre Party, but these have little impact on the political process. Legislation regarding political parties was passed in March 2007 which made it a requirement that all political parties had to report to the Ministry of the Interior and have a minimum of five hundred founding members from at least five governorates. This was seen by some as a direct threat to a number of the political parties which are small in membership.

Public disillusion with existing political parties has been highlighted in research carried out by the Centre for Strategic Studies at Jordan University. The investigation concluded that in 2007 only 9.7% of respondents felt that the political parties represented their political, economic and social aspirations. Furthermore, 80% of respondents believed that ‘none’ of the political parties were ‘qualified to form a government’.

Legal, Financial, Administrative and Foreign Affairs. Both houses have the ability to create committees when required.The Jordanian Parliament and its form of democracy are young in comparison to their western contemporaries. According to Kaaklini et al., “Since 1989, it [Jordanian Parliament] has become a more credible, representative, and influential institution. Still, serious constitutional, political, and internal hurdles continue to prevent it from enjoying the prerogatives and from performing the range of functions that are appropriate for a legislature in a democratic system”. Judged against other states in the Middle East, Jordan has made significant progress towards a democratic system of government.

It has been argued that the Jordanian Parliament is part of a democracy that has not been achieved by other states within the Middle East. However, in comparison to elected democracies as associated with ‘western’ nations, Jordan may not be considered to have occurred as the monarchy continues to dominate national politics, “…1989 elections brought unparalleled political liberalization and somewhat greater democratic input… although the political supremacy of the palace has been rendered less visible by the more active role of parliament, it is clear that a fundamental transfer of power into elected hands has not yet occurred.”.

The political system of Jordan is aparliamentary monarchy based on theconstitution of 1952. The head of state is the monarch, King Abdullah II, who has far-reaching powers. The Prime Minister and Council of Ministers are appointed by king. Furthermore, the king has the power to declare a state of emergency and retains the power to promulgate and ratify laws, direct the enactment of regulations, ratify treaties and agreements, declare war, conclude peace. The monarchy also has right to dissolve and reconvene the parliament.

Ma'an Movement in Jordan

The Ma’an Movement or Ma'an List ( lit. "Together List") is a left-wing political movement and electoral list in Jordan. It has stood on a secular, reformist platform, and has articulated its stances on a variety of social and economic issues. The movement was established in 2016 just before the Jordanian general election held in September of that year. In that general election, the movement's electoral list won two parliamentary seats in the third district of the Jordanian capital, Amman.

There is a bicameral parliamentary system in Jordan. The lower house, the House of Representatives, Chamber of Deputies, or Majlis al-Nuwaab, consists of 130 members, elected by universal suffrage, while the upper house of the Senate, House of Notables, or Majlis al-Aayan, comprises 65 members all of whom are appointed by the king. Within the House of Representatives there are 15 seats reserved for women, and 12 for Christian, Chechen, and Circassian candidates, and the members serve 4 year terms.

Despite the elections that take place, democracy is not one of the basic tenets of system and the king has far-reaching authority in the governance of the country. One of the challenges of democracy in Jordan derives from the electoral system itself. The Jordanian one-person, one-vote version of the single non-transferable voting system was formulated to heavily favour tribal and other narrow interest groups over candidates or parties running on ideological/political platforms. The new Election Law of 2015 was intended to alleviate some of these issues, but it has been argued that the system continues to be plagued with problems. Additionally, cheating and bribery have been found to take place in elections, for example in the case of the former head of theGeneral Intelligence Directorate, Muhammad Dhahabi. Moreover, the king has influence in the judicial system. The chief justice is appointed by the king, while other judges are nominated by higher council and approved by the king.

Though some democratic reforms after the Arab Spring and 2011 protests in Jordan, the king did not lose his authority in the state governance. The wide authority of the king and electoral system continue to be the main obstacles to democracy in Jordan. According to Freedom House, Jordan is ranked as the 4th freest Arab country, and as "partly free" in the Freedom in the World 2017 report.

The state religion in Jordan is Islam, and 92% of the population is estimated to be Sunni Muslim. The history of secular and leftist politics in Jordan has changed over time. There have been several decades of pro-reform activism over the years but with little effective change. From the 1950s to the 1970s the strongest opponents to the Hashemite regime were Arab nationalists and leftists, whose organisations and parties were severely repressed during that time. As the influence of their ideologies declined in recent years, some groups threw their support behind the state, while others continued to oppose it. By 1988, however, the most potent opposition force had become Islamist groups, along with the "usual suspects" of leftists and Palestinians. Aside from the Islamist parties, the political parties have often been seen as weak.

Tahir al-Masri’s 1991 cabinet heavily represented leftist and secular deputies in order to contain the growing power of Islamists, co-opt moderate Palestinians, and deepen liberalisation processes. This government was toppled over negotiations with Israel, but marked an attempt by the monarchy to neutralise secular forces in Jordanian society.

The government’s current position is that a civil state is not the same as a secular state, and that religion should not be detached from the public sphere.

There have been a number of political parties and movements in Jordan that have espoused secular, nationalist and progressive aims. Communist parties have existed in Jordan since the country's establishment. The Jordanian Communist Party (JCP) founded in 1951. The party follows Marxist and Leninist ideologies. JCP is considered the oldest and strongly rooted parties in Jordan and had a large following during the 1950s and 60s. However, after suffering ideological cleavages, the party has largely been limited in its scope.

While Arab Nationalist parties in Jordan had often sought to highlight the historical connections between Arabism and Islam, the Ba'ath parties in Jordan took a different stance. They advocated ardently for Arab secularism, and as such, were able to appeal to both Arab religious minorities and Sunni Muslims who wanted a secular state. Ba’athist parties include the Arab Ba'ath Progressive Party and the Jordanian Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party, both reached official licensing in 1993, though active unofficially since 1947. The Arab Ba’ath Progressive Party seeks the unity of an Arab nation with a strong democracy and the rule of law, while the Jordanian Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party include a socialist economic model in their aims. Both parties continue to operate in Jordan though their activities have been limited, for example, participating in the 2011-12 protests.

In the contemporary context, the Jordanian Social Left Movement was established in 2007 to serve as a platform for leftists and democrats from diverse backgrounds. It grew out of the activities of the Dhiban Youth Committee and attracted a high number of leftist and you activists when it was first created. The movement stated its aims in some of the same areas the Ma'an movement has now taken up, including health, education, taxation, and employment along a broadly left-wing platform.

"Hirak" refers to the non-traditional political movements that emerged in 2011. As the initiators of "hirak" in Jordan, the Jordanian Social Left Movement’s mandate reflected much of the reform desired by left-leaning parties and movements in Jordan, and the movement was one of the first to participate in the protests in 2011. The different movements within "hirak" were largely fragmented, and therefore struggled to successfully advocate for their reformist agenda. Even so, it increasingly became possible to speak of "hirak" as a more cohesive, single movement, which formed a left-wing opposition to the government throughout 2011. Since that time, the movement has fragmented due to the domestic and regional political developments.

Other, similar initiatives have also emerged in recent years, including Shaghaf (Youths for an Active Tomorrow) and Taqaddam, demanding a “democratic, progressive, productive, green and secure Jordan”. These grassroots organizations have diverse aims, rooted in progressive democratisation. In the context of the 2016 general election, Shaghaf sought to position itself as a youth alliance working to ensure that political parties kept their promises in the aftermath of the election. Meanwhile Taqaddam describes itself as a citizen-driven platform working for change to create a "democratic, progressive, productive, green and secure Jordan".

In the parliament there have also been some attempts to promote a more reformist agenda. The legislative block Mubadarah has worked towards such goals, beginning with pressure on the government to give civil rights to the children of Jordanian women married to foreigners. As of April 2016, Mubadarah was considering moving towards full political party status.

The vision of Ma'an Movement started prior to the general election. The list was formed by individuals from a variety of different political backgrounds. It was intended to face the tribal-Islamic coalition through the idea of a civil state and a lack of emphasis on religion. As Qais Zayadin, one of the founders said, “Ma'an was the creation of some people who wanted to change Jordan". The official establishment took place in August 2016 prior to the 2016 general election. On 26 August 2016, the Ma'an movement held an event in the Shmeisani neighbourhood of Amman, in which establishment of the Ma'an electoral list was announced. The event was attended by more than 4,000 people, including many young people. In the event the leaders outlined their position, which included freedom and dignity for all, as well as justice among all members of society, including men and women.

The stated goal of Ma’an movement is to create a state that provides freedom and dignity which is based on citizenship, equality, and security for all its citizens, regardless of their gender, origin, religious beliefs, or ideology. They seek for citizens to be able to participate in a society where responsibilities and rights are equally-shared; in which equality is attained through the division of authorities and modern laws. They argue that these will be able to save the economy from debt and transform Jordan into a country where people live securely. The Ma'an movement members state that they aim to separate religious authority from state authority and to protect the country and its citizens from "radical" beliefs. They also state that freedom of expression should be secured as an essential right for every citizen.

The Ma'an movement describes itself as working towards the overall goal of the establishment of Jordan as a civil, secular state. Their ideas reflect some of the historic and contemporary movements that have been active in Jordan advocating for a similarly reformist, left-wing, and secular platform. They focus on the obligations of both the state and the citizen in their "rights and duties", separation of powers, and secular laws. This extends to freedom of expression and freedom of the press, which they state to be "fundamental" within a democratic society. They have rejected the mixing of religion and politics that is often put forward by political candidates in Jordan, and instead emphasised the importance of pluralism in religion. Qais Zayadin articulated Ma'an's vision and stated that “we call for complete equality regardless of one’s gender, religion, profession or nationality. This is in the constitution, however it is not really being practiced.” He further elaborated that a civil society as Ma'an envisages it involves “the rule of law between the citizen and the state is implemented in the correct manner”.

Zayadin has stated on the relationship between religion and politics that in Ma'an's view, “religion is something pure, politics is something dirty. They cannot be mixed together.” In an interview, Zayadin spoke about how the movement is aware of the fears that people have when it comes to secularisation. “Religion is quite involved in the everyday life of people. There are certain parties in Jordan that use religion in their own way to convince people of their political stance,” he said.

On a range of other issues, Ma'an List members have described their position. They have declared these on their website and through newspaper reports and television interviews.

The list has emphasised their focus on gender equality and the extension of justice within society to both men and women. They have stood on a platform to repeal certain laws, such as Articles 308 and 340, concerning violence towards women, and on reforming Jordanian nationality law in order to allow Jordanian women to pass on their nationality to their children.

Ma’an list's position on education emphasizes the right to free education for all Jordanians. There have been many attempts in Jordan to reform the education system but many problems persist. The Ma'an movement has stressed the importance of developing the quality of education in public schools and universities. They have said they will aim to change the current curricula and replace them with ones that keep up with scientific development, and to incorporate educational tools to help students synthesize, analyze, and collaborate. They also have said they will seek to monitor tuition increase in schools and universities and support teachers and encourage them to do scientific research.

Ma’an movement establishers have stated that they will work on creating a stable economic environment in Jordan through encouraging investors and investment in Jordan. They have said they will also work towards securing the rights of the investor and citizens, by altering laws created by the Investment Commission in Jordan. They have said that laws protecting the rights of owners should be secured, and that the parliament should be able to observe and scrutinize the commission’s actions, and ensure that investors are able to work easily in all ministries; getting rid of all the administrative and technical barriers facing investment.

The problem of unemployment is a significant challenge for Jordan as unemployment rates are soaring in the country. Ma’an aims to fight unemployment in society through laws and legislations that enable the creation of projects that provide youth with job opportunities. They have stated that they will also try to alter labor laws, increase minimum wage, and protect workers from forced labor and arbitrary expulsion from the workplace. Furthermore, they have said that the state has to facilitate financing small enterprises to provide most citizens opportunities to create private projects which do not need high capital or foreign investment. They have called for an increase in tax exemption for individuals whose income is less than 1000 JD/month.

Jordan imports around 90% of its energy at present. As a result, investment and diversification is needed in order to meet the growing population's energy needs in the coming years. Ma'an list establishers have stated that the government needs to focus more on environmental projects and ensure the flexibility of investment conditions for such projects. They have also said that the state needs to focus also on the use of renewable energy in all sectors, through laws that encourage all sectors to switch to renewable energy sources which would eventually decrease the expenditure on energy as well as protect the environment.

Ma'an movement establishers have stated that they will seek to tackle the problem of corruption in Jordan. Studies have found that the problem is spread throughout the political, economic, and administrative scenes in Jordan, which stands in the way of investment and development. Ma’an have said that they will seek to guarantee the independence of official monitoring services financially and administratively, and enable civil society institutions to fight corruption through the establishment of transparency in the public and private sectors as well as improving laws that foster accountability and institutionalizing the role of the parliament regarding that aspect.

The Ma’an movement has drawn attention to the issue of drug and substance abuse in Jordanian society and articulated their position on how to tackle it. Drug and substance abuse has been found to be on the rise in Jordan, and therefore the movement argues it is an important issue to tackle. They have stated that they will work through multiple channels to eradicate the problem of drug abuse in society through the creation and implementation of appropriate awareness programs to all citizens. They have also said that they will seek to create effective and up-to-date rehabilitation centers.

In the 2016 general election in Jordan the Ma'an list won two seats in Amman's third district. The elected candidates were Khaled Awad and Qais Zayadin. The candidates won the seat for the Ma'an list and for the Christian quota in the district. The Ma'an movement had created a list specifically for the election in Amman and had run with the mandate of creating a "civil state" in line with its aims. Their slogan was "Citizenship, Justice, Security", with a strong focus against radicalisation and exploitation of religion in society. In response to the election's results, Zayadin stated that “the tremendous amount of support that we found was unbelievable from people all over Jordan who are extremely interested in the idea [of separating religion and politics]”. He added, “it is what I call the silent majority.”

Since the election the movement has focused on continuing to engage young people in Jordan and has been running sessions across the country to educate people on what a civil state would really mean. Zayadin said, “we need to explain the meaning of the civil state and the fact that it does not go against religion. On the contrary it protects religion.” Furthermore, they have been working on including young people in the Jordanian parliament so the voices of the significant youth population in Jordan can have their voices heard. Zayadin has said that the movement is already looking to expand its parliamentary successes at the next elections, stating that, “we want to have 10, maybe 20 members at the next parliament".

Despite the Ma'an list's electoral success, The New Arab has also reported that there were "no surprises, no heartaches and no steps forward" in the elections. The biggest opposition in Jordan continues to be the moderate Islamist parties. In the elections overall, turnout was around 36%, which is lower than in January 2013's elections and reports of apathy communicated by independent observers.

Ma'an List gained wide media attention from local news agencies since its members announced they were participating in the parliamentary elections. Local print newspapers like Al-Ghad, Al-Ra'i, Addustour, and Al-Sabil covered the list and its electoral program from different perspectives. Al-Ghad newspaper published articles by writers who support Ma'an movement, while Al-Sabil, which represents the Islamic Action Front, opposed Ma'an movement. Al-Ghad published an article in August, where the author, Marwan Mouasher, stated that "for the first time, people talked transparently about the civil state, democracy, and other goals that want to be achieved by the list". Members of the list talked about "working hard to achieve equality." He expressed his admiration of how the members of Ma'an list explicitly stated how they like music, theater, and the arts. He encouraged readers who believe in a civil state and democracy to vote for Ma'an list on election day. He also said that change can never happen overnight; yet it cannot be made if people do nothing on election day, asserting that a "democratic" civil society should have its "voice" heard.

The Ma’an movement has not been extensively covered in the global media. It gained the most attention in the run up to the 2016 parliamentary elections where it put forward the Ma’an List. The Washington Post mentioned the list as an exception to the “generic trend” in the Jordanian elections. This was argued in reference to the list’s explicit identity as a “civil state” list which argues for secular politics and the separation of religion from government. The Washington Post compared the Ma’an List to Taqaddam, another civil society organisation offering a progressive programme and voter guide, though not a formal list.

Middle East Eye also covered the Ma’an List and grassroots activist coalition in the run up to the election. It reported that the list had “shaken up” the election campaign and “raised eyebrows”. In the run up to the election Middle East Eye reported that Ma’an envisioned itself as a crucial actor in restricting the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Action Front.

The Ma’an movement has caused some controversy within Jordan. The secular politics and notion of a “civil state” that the movement espouses is at odds with the majority of political expression within the country. One of the movement’s leaders, Qais Zayadin, clashed in a public debate with an Islamic Action Front candidate in the run up to the election. In this debate, Saleh Al-Armouti, a candidate from the Islamic Action Front, said that "secularism was the worst thing that the west brought us", while Zayadin stated that a civil state protects all religions. Al-Armouti equated dance and ballet to prostitution, since its against religion and Shari'a. He said that they (Ma'an list) are trying to reach the parliament through "pornography", and if dancers wanted to give him their votes, he doesn't want them. Zayadin answered by saying that, "we at Ma'an support music, the arts, music, and thinking."

Some of the list’s slogans proved particularly provocative, including “no to the abuse of religion” and “against terrorism and extremism”. The Ma'an list's platform was the first time in Jordan's history that a list of candidates openly ran on a program to promote a civil, democratic, and secular state. Their victory in the two seats they won in the third district parallels the three seats an Islamist alliance won in the same district, highlighting the "conflicting social and cultural undercurrents" there, and in Jordan more widely. The leaders of the movement and the list have faced issues due to their policy positions. In particular, their call for the separation of religion and politics has brought death threats, including threats of beheading. In addition, the list found a large number of its supporters among those who have resented the status quo in Jordan, and have seen that patronage and tribal systems are still in use, as well as increased extremism in Jordan after the Arab Spring. This caused the establishers to come up with these slogans, where one of them states that a "civil state is the solution" as opposed to the historic Islamic movement's slogan "Islam is the solution". This confrontation between an old and well-established Islamic front – led by the Muslim Brotherhood and represented by the Islamic Action Front – and the Ma'an list led the Islamic Action front change their slogans, moving away from only saying "Islam is the solution".

Jordan is a constitutional monarchy ruled by King Abdullah II bin Hussein. The constitution concentrates executive and legislative authority in the king.

Human rights in Jordan

Human rights in Jordan are among the best and most respected in the Middle East. Although recently there have been far-reaching reforms of the laws and regulations in the country, abuses against basic rights such as freedom of expression persisted.

According to Freedom House, Jordan is ranked as the fourth-freest Arab country, and as "partly free" in the Freedom in the World 2017 report. In 2017, Jordan is considered an "authoritarian regime" according to Democracy Index.

The 2011 Jordanian protests began in the wake of unrest in Tunisia and Egypt. Starting in January 2011, several thousand Jordanians staged weekly demonstrations and marches in Amman (the capital) and other cities to protest government corruption, rising prices, poverty, and high unemployment. In response, King Abdullah II replaced his prime minister and formed a National Dialogue Commission with a mandate to carry out reforms. The king told the new prime minister to "take quick, concrete, and practical steps to launch a genuine political reform process," "to strengthen democracy," and to provide Jordanians with the "dignified life they deserve." He called for an "immediate revision" of laws governing politics and public freedoms. Since then, reports have shown good initial results but much work remaining to be done.

The 2010 Arab Democracy Index from the Arab Reform Initiative ranked Jordan first in the state of democratic reforms out of fifteen Arab countries.

Jordan has a bicameral legislature, the National Assembly, consisting of an upper house, the Assembly of Senators, appointed by the king and an elected lower house, the Chamber of Deputies. The members of both houses hold office for four-year terms. There are 60 seats in the Senate and 120 in the Chamber of Deputies. In the Chamber of Deputies 12 seats are reserved for women, 9 seats for Christian candidates, 9 for Bedouin candidates, and 3 for Jordanians of Chechen or Circassian descent. The Assembly of Senators is responsible to the Chamber of Deputies and can be dismissed by "a vote of no confidence". The king may dissolve the National Assembly, forcing new elections. King Abdullah did that on 24 November 2009, and the government ruled by decree through most of 2010, until new elections were held in November. Parliamentary elections have been deemed credible by international observers. The king signs and executes all laws, but his veto power can be overridden by two-thirds vote of the National Assembly. The judicial branch is completely independent. Security forces report to civilian authorities.

The law does not provide citizens the right to change their monarch or government. The king appoints and dismisses the prime minister, cabinet, the Assembly of Senators, and judges, may dissolve parliament, commands the military, and directs major public policy initiatives. The cabinet, based on the prime minister's recommendation, appoints the mayors of Amman, Wadi Musa (Petra), and Aqaba, a special economic zone. The mayors of the other 93 municipalities are elected.

Opposition movements are legal in Jordan and are involved in Jordan's political life. The government licenses political parties and other associations and prohibits membership in unlicensed political parties. There are over 50 licensed political parties, but only a few have a substantial impact at the national level.

Jordan ranked sixth among the 19 countries in the Middle East and North Africa region, and 50th out of 178 countries worldwide in the 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) issued by Transparency International, where 1st is the least corrupt. Jordan's 2010 CPI score was 4.7 on a scale from 0 (highly corrupt) to 10 (very clean). Jordan ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) in February 2005 and has been a regional leader in spearheading efforts to promote the UNCAC and its implementation.

The Jordanian constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press; however, the government does not fully respect these rights in practice. In its 2009 annual report the Amman-based National Center for Defending the Freedom of Journalists (CDFJ) concluded that media freedoms deteriorated in 2009.
In the 2010 Press Freedom Index maintained by Reporters Without Borders, Jordan ranked 120th out of 178 countries listed, 5th out of the 20 countries in the Middle East and North Africa region. Jordan's score was 37 on a scale from 0 (most free) to 105 (least free).

The law provides for up to three years' imprisonment for insulting the king, slandering the government or foreign leaders, offending religious beliefs, or stirring sectarian strife and sedition. In practice citizens are generally able to criticize the government, although they reportedly exercise caution in regard to the king, the royal family, the General Intelligence Directorate (GID), and other sensitive topics such as religion.

The government continues to enforce bans on the publication of selected books for religious, moral, and political reasons, some foreign films are edited prior to release, and the media is directly and indirectly censored. Authorities monitor and censor printing presses and edit articles deemed offensive before they can be printed. Journalists claim the government uses informants in newsrooms and that GID officials monitor reporting. Editors reportedly receive telephone calls from security officials instructing them how to cover events or to refrain from covering certain topics or events. Government officials also reportedly bribe journalists to influence their reporting. Media observers note that when covering controversial subjects, government-owned Jordan Radio and Television and Jordan News Agency reported only the government's position.

Journalists report that the threat of detention and imprisonment under the penal code for a variety of offenses, and stringent fines of as much as 20,000 dinars ($28,000) under the press and publications law for defamation leads to self-censorship. According to a 2009 Center for Defending the Freedom of Journalists survey, 95 percent of journalists polled exercised self-censorship. The survey also reported that 70 percent of journalists thought the government used "soft containment", such as financial support, scholarships for relatives, and special invitations, to control the media at a medium to high degree. Ninety-four percent said they avoid writing about or broadcasting military matters, and 83 percent said they avoid discussing religious topics.

There were several cases in which the government prohibited journalists from reporting on high-profile court cases. For example, a State Security Court attorney general prohibited the press from reporting or commenting on the case of the Jordan Petroleum Refinery Company expansion project without his personal approval, purportedly to allow the judicial authorities to work "calmly" on the case.

The clash between Jordanian media and the Lower House has been a chronic struggle for decades. The state of press freedom in Jordan is very fickle, at one point Jordan had one of the most vocal media in the Arab World, but a series of laws passed by Parliament greatly restricted press freedom. The Jordanian media has been very vocal expressing its opposition towards Parliament often leading to clashes. One Jordanian journalist wrote a fiery article called "For God Sake, Abdullah", in which he called on King Abdullah to dissolve the corrupt Lower House. He was prosecuted by the Lower House, but was later acquitted by the judiciary.

In October 2001, the government amended the Penal Code and introduced a restrictive Press Law that effectively revokes the relative freedom of the press guaranteed by the 1993 Press Law and punishes any act that can be deemed critical of the Jordanian government. Anyone who "slanders" the King or other members of the royal family can be sentenced to three years imprisonment. The introduction of these new laws has led to the detention and imprisonment of several journalists and leaders of peaceful associations.

In May 2006, two journalists involved in reprinting three of the 12 Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons were issued a two-month prison sentence. Jordan was the only Muslim country to reprint the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammed in one of its newspapers. The two Jordanian editors responsible were sacked and pressured to issue a public apology.

In the beginning of 2009, King Abdullah II issued a royal decree forbidding jailing of journalists in Jordan, an act praised by human rights groups in Jordan and around the world.

According to Human Rights Watch, Jordanian authorities has used counterterrorism laws to prosecute activists, dissidents, journalists and Islamic preachers for speech offenses, the authorities depends largely on counterterrorism law that extended the definition of terrorism to include acts such as disturbing Jordan's relations with a foreign state. In February, a senior Muslim Brotherhood figure, Zaki Bani Irsheid, was sentenced to 18 months in prison after a post on Facebook criticizing the United Arab Emirates. In June, Eyad Qunaibi, an Islamic preacher, was arrested after posting Facebook comments criticizing the liberal lifestyle of a segment of the Jordanian society.

Jordan is listed as engaged in selective internet filtering in the political area and as showing no evidence of filtering in the social, conflict/security, and Internet tools areas by the OpenNet Initiative (ONI) in August 2009. Internet censorship in Jordan is relatively light, with filtering selectively applied to only a small number of sites. However, media laws and regulations encourage some measure of self-censorship in cyberspace, and citizens have reportedly been questioned and arrested for Web content they have authored. Internet censorship in Jordan is mainly focused on political issues that might be seen as a threat to national security due to the nation's close proximity to regional hotspots of Israel, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories.

In 2013, however, the Press and Publications Department initiated a ban on Jordanian news websites which had not registered and been licensed by government agency. The order issued to Telecommunication Regulatory Commission contained a list of over 300 websites to be blocked. The mandatory registration of websites was a part of amendments made to the Press and Publications Law in September 2012. The amendments included articles that would hold online news sites accountable for the comments left by their readers, prohibiting them from publishing comments that are deemed "irrelevant" or "unrelated" to the article. The restriction caused several prominent sites to turn off their comments sections. Online news sites are required to archive all comments for at least six months.

According to US Department of State's Human Rights Reports in 2015 legal and societal discrimination and harassment remained a problem for religious minorities, and religious converts.

The Jordanian Constitution provides for the freedom to practice one's religion in accordance with the customs in the Kingdom, unless they violate public order or morality. Jordan's state religion is Islam. The Government bans conversion from Islam and efforts to proselytize Muslims. While proselytizing to Christians may not be banned, it is equally not favored and very hampered with bureaucratic red tape that renders it near impossible to legalize.

The US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report of 2009 indicated that there were "no reports that the practice of any faith was prohibited" in Jordan. In fact, Jordan has been highlighted as a model of interfaith dialogue. The study also concluded that in the last year there were "no reports of misuse or neglect" of the Kingdom's diverse religious sites, as well as no reports of "harassment, discrimination, or restrictions" to worshippers.

Christians are well integrated into the Kingdom's political and economic landscapes. At least one Christian holds a ministerial post in every government, nine seats in the 120-seat Parliament are reserved for Christians, and a similar number is appointed to the Upper House by the King. In addition, Christians have traditionally prospered in the kingdom to the extent that Jordanian Christians are believed to own or run about a third of the Jordanian economy despite making up only 6% of the total population. They serve in the military, many have high positions in the army, and they have established good relations with the royal family. The Pope has been to Jordan, where he was welcomed by the royal family.

Jordan is a destination for women and men subjected to trafficking in persons, specifically conditions of forced labor and, to a lesser extent, forced prostitution. Jordan is possibly a source and transit country for women and men subjected to conditions of forced labor and forced commercial sexual exploitation. There are also reports of Jordanian child laborers experiencing conditions of forced labor.

Moroccan and Tunisian women are reportedly subjected to forced prostitution after migrating to Jordan to work in restaurants and night clubs. In addition, a few Chinese, Bangladeshi, Indian, Sri Lankan, and Vietnamese men and women encountered conditions indicative of forced labor in a few factories in the garment sector, including factories in Jordan's Qualifying Industrial Zones, such as the unlawful withholding of passports, delayed payment of wages, and, in a few cases, verbal and physical abuse. Instances of forced labor reportedly continued to decline due to enhanced labor inspections and other recent measures undertaken by the government within the garment sector. NGOs and the media also report the forced labor of Egyptian workers in the construction, agriculture, and tourism sectors. Jordan's airports may be transit points for South- and Southeast-Asian men and women en route to employment opportunities in other Middle Eastern countries, where they experience labor exploitation after arrival. Some Jordanian children employed within the country as street vendors, carpenters, painters, mechanics, domestics, restaurant staff, or agricultural laborers may be exploited in situations of forced labor.

In 2009, an Anti-Human Trafficking Law was endorsed by the government that severely restricts human trafficking in the Kingdom and creates a committee to promote public awareness on the issue. Jordan in cooperation with the Filipino Government worked out an agreement which gave a wide range of rights to domestic workers and access to legal protection, the first Arab country to do so.

New regulations to regulate the working conditions of all domestic workers prescribe maximum working hours, rights to holiday and sick leave, and domestic workers' entitlement to regular contact with their own families. According to Amnesty International, despite addressing important issues, the regulations are loosely worded and open to interpretation in certain respects, fail to specify mechanisms for determining wages, or to resolve long-standing problems related to nonpayment of wages or low wages. They also fail to provide effective safeguards against physical violence and sexual abuse by employers of domestic workers, the great majority of whom are women, and appear to place women at risk by requiring domestic workers to obtain their employer's permission before leaving their house.

While there has been some improvement in combating human trafficking, Jordan remains a Tier 2 country (countries whose governments do not fully comply with the U.S. Trafficking Victims Protection Act's minimum standards, but are making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance with those standards) in the U.S. State Department's "Trafficking in Persons Report 2010" because victim assistance, public awareness raising, punishment of traffickers, and active cooperation with source country embassies remain limited.

Torture is illegal in Jordan, however it remains widespread. According to a report by Amnesty International, intelligence agents in Jordan frequently use torture to extract confessions from terror suspects. Common tactics include, "beating, sleep deprivation, extended solitary confinement, and physical suspension." Palestinians and suspected Islamists are treated especially harshly. Though Jordan has improved many procedures including a prison reform campaign in partnership with EU in this respect, agents at the General Intelligence Department remain largely immune to punishment.

In May 2010, the UN Committee against Torture reiterated long-standing concerns at Jordan's failure to investigate and prosecute allegations of torture, to provide adequate protection against torture, and to prosecute perpetrators in accordance with the seriousness of the crime. It noted the "numerous, consistent and credible allegations of a widespread and routine practice of torture and ill-treatment" including in General Intelligence Department (GID) and Criminal Investigations Department detention. The government did not respond to the Committee's recommendations.

According to Rana Husseini of "The Jordan Times", there were 12 recorded "honor killings" in Jordan from January to November 2010. These so-called "honor killings", the killing of female relatives suspected of illicit relationships, are often lightly punished by police and the courts. There have been several attempts to introduce harsh penalties on honor crimes, but, even with the strong backing of the royal family, these attempts have been rejected by Jordan's Lower House. In May 2010, the government decreed amendments to the penal code to ensure that "honor" crimes receive the full penalty of the law.

After a moratorium since 2006 there were eleven executions on 21 December 2014, all detainees were men convicted of murder. Amendments to the penal code have reduced the number of capital offenses. State security, smuggling, arson resulting in death, and inciting armed riot cases are no longer capital crimes. In March 2010, the Justice Minister announced that the crime of rape may cease to be a capital offense. In the future it is possible that the death penalty will be limited to cases of murder.

At the end of 2010 the government reports that 46 people were under sentence of death and six new death sentences were imposed during the year. Amnesty International reports nine new death sentences in 2010.

Fifteen executions were carried on dawn of 4 March 2017; ten convicted with terrorism and the remaining 5 with murder and rape of minors. Those convicted with terrorism were part of a terror attack in Irbid, an attack on intelligence officers and the attack on Jordanian writer Nahed Hattar.

Jordanian law prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, but according to local and international human rights groups, the government does not always observe these prohibitions in practice.

Citizens and NGOs allege that the government continues to detain individuals, including political opposition members, for political reasons, and that governors continued to use administrative detentions for what appeared to be political reasons. In a few cases, the media and human rights organizations reported that authorities kept detainees in solitary confinement and denied them access to lawyers.

Human rights observers claimed that police make arrests before obtaining warrants and prosecutors fail to file charges or seek extensions in a timely manner. Prosecutors routinely request and are granted extensions that increase the period to file formal charges to as long as six months for a felony and two months for a misdemeanor. This practice can lengthen pretrial detention for protracted periods. Some detainees report not being allowed timely access to a lawyer, but authorities generally permit visits by family members.

In facilities operated by the General Intelligence Directorate (GID) there are allegations of long periods of incommunicado detention, lengthy pretrial detention without being informed of charges, and not allowing defendants to meet with their lawyers or permitting meetings only shortly before trial.

Under the Crime Prevention Law, provincial governors may detain individuals suspected of planning to commit a crime or those who allegedly shelter thieves, habitually steal, or constitute a danger to the public, and in practice they used this provision widely. Those accused are subject to imprisonment or house arrest as "administrative detention" without formal charges. A detention order may be for as long as one year, but governors can impose new orders to prolong detentions. International and national NGOs noted that governors routinely abused the law, imprisoning individuals when there was not enough evidence to convict them and prolonging detentions of prisoners whose sentences had expired. The law was also widely used to incarcerate women at risk of being honor crime victims.

Jordanian law provides for an independent judiciary; however, the judiciary's independence in practice may be compromised by nepotism and the influence of special interests.

The law presumes that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Juries are not used. Most trials in civilian courts are open and procedurally sound, but the State Security Court (SSC) may close its proceedings to the public. Defendants are entitled to legal counsel, provided at public expense for the indigent in cases involving the death penalty or potential life imprisonment. In many cases defendants have no legal representation. Defendants can present witnesses on their behalf and question witnesses against them. Defense attorneys were generally granted access to government-held evidence relevant to their clients' cases. Defendants can appeal verdicts and appeals are automatic for cases involving the death penalty.

There are significant problems with the conditions in prisons, including poor legal services, under staffing, inadequate food and health care, poor sanitation standards, poor ventilation, extreme temperatures, inadequate access to potable water, ineffective pre-release and post-release programs, and insufficient basic and emergency medical care. Some detainees report abuse and mistreatment by guards. Hunger strikes remain common, but prison riots and allegations of mistreatment have decreased. The construction of four new prisons reduced overcrowding somewhat.

Freedom House rates women's rights in five categories, each scored from one (lowest level of freedom) to five (highest level):

In 2009 of 18 Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries surveyed, Jordan ranked in the upper third for each category (between 4th and 7th).

Limited economic opportunity is one of the main reasons for poor scores in many of the above categories. It is not just discrimination that accounts for high rates of unemployment, but also genuine economic difficulties and shortages of jobs. "The shrinking of the public sector disproportionately affects women, the location of jobs matters more for women than for men, and discrimination in the private sector remains".

In 2005 Freedom House criticized Jordan for its poor women's rights record, but also acknowledged that the "status of women in Jordan is currently undergoing a historic transition, with women achieving a number of positive gains and new rights."

Educated women were granted suffrage in 1955, but it was not until 1974 that all women received the right to vote and run as candidates in parliamentary elections. In 1993, the first female candidate was elected to the lower house of parliament and the first woman was appointed to the upper house. Women have assumed high-level governmental positions in greater numbers, gaining appointments as ministers and lawmakers with increasing frequency. An average of three ministerial portfolios has been assigned to women in each cabinet since 2004, and a gender-based quota system, first introduced for the lower house of parliament in 2003, was expanded to municipal councils in 2007.

From 2004 until the end of 2009, the women's movement made a number of important gains, including the publication of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in the official gazette, which gave it the force of law. Additionally, the government has taken steps to address the problem of domestic abuse, including the February 2007 opening of the country's first major women's shelter, the Family Reconciliation House, and the March 2008 promulgation of the Family Protection Law, designed to regulate the handling of domestic abuse cases by medical workers and law enforcement bodies.

Today, Jordanian women largely enjoy legal equality in freedom of movement, health care, education, political participation, and employment. And, while the attitudes of police officers, judges, and prosecutors regarding the treatment of victims of domestic violence and honor crimes have undergone a positive shift in recent years, gender-based violence remains a serious concern.

There remains gender-based discrimination in family laws, in the provision of pensions and social security benefits, and on the societal level due to deeply entrenched patriarchal norms that restrict female employment and property ownership. And women do not have the same status as men with respect to nationality. A Jordanian man may marry a foreigner and pass on his nationality to his children; women cannot. Nor can women pass on their nationality to their husbands.

Women are no longer required to seek permission from their male guardians or husbands before obtaining or renewing their passports, but fathers may still prevent their children from traveling regardless of the mother's wishes. Muslim women are prohibited from marrying men of other religions unless the spouse agrees to convert to Islam, while Muslim men are permitted to wed Christian and Jewish wives.

In 2013, the U.S. Department of Labor's "Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor" reported that Jordan has "made a moderate advancement in efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child labor" but that a percentage as low as 0.8% of children aged 5 to 14 continue to engage in child labor, mostly in the agricultural sector and in domestic service.
In December 2014, the Department issued a "List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor" where Jordan figures among 74 other countries that resort to such labor practices. Jordan was reported to make use of forced labor in the garment industry.

Legal and societal discrimination and harassment remained a problem for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) persons in Jordan.
Jordan is one of the few countries in the Middle East where homosexuality is legal, provided that it occurs in private, does not involve prostitution, and only involves consenting adults. However, sexual orientation and gender identity issues remain taboo within the traditional culture and the government does not recognize same-sex civil unions or marriages.
Transgender Jordanians may be allowed to change their legal Sex, however Sex Reassignment Surgery is required.

Jordan was one of the first countries in the Middle east to establish a national human rights institution (NHRI). The National Centre for Human Rights (NCHR) in 2006 secured 'A-status' accreditation from the peer review process of the International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs, giving it enhanced access to the United Nations human rights bodies. That status was subjected to special review twice by the ICC in 2007, and reaffirmed; it was again accorded A status under the ordinary review procedure in 2010. In the ICC annual meeting in March 2012, the Jordanian institution was elected as chair of the network of 99 institutions. The Commissioner General of the NCHR is Dr Mousa Burayzat.

Jordan is a party to many human rights agreements, including:Jordan was the only country in the Middle East and North Africa that is a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which prosecutes those who commit crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression, and genocide, until Tunisia became a member in 2011. Palestine became a member of ICCC in 2015.

Although Jordan is a constitutional monarchy, the king is vested with considerable executive and legislative powers. He is commander-in-chief of the Jordanian Armed Forces and appoints the prime minister and the directors of security agencies. He also appoints the members of the upper house, the Senate, as well as the members of the Constitutional Court.

List of kings of Jordan

The King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is Jordan's head of state and monarch. He serves as the head of the Jordanian monarchy — the Hashemite dynasty. The king is addressed as His Majesty ().

The Jordanian monarchy was set up in 1921. The sons of Hussein bin Ali, the Sharif of Mecca from 1908 until 1916, were set up as kings of Iraq and Jordan. In Jordan, Abdullah I was made Emir of Transjordan, a post he held from 11 April 1921 until Transjordan was granted independence on 25 May 1946 as the "Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan". Abdullah was crowned the country's first king. The country's name was shortened to the "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" on 3 April 1949, after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.