By Abdulillah
The Jordanian parliamentary elections are now over, touted by the plethora of news articles, opinion pieces, foreign election monitors and even governments as fair and as transparent as they could have been under the circumstances dictated by the introduction of a new election regulatory body, and new rules such as the casting of two votes by each voter, etc… That being said what I would like to review in this opinion piece is a bit more intellectually based, that of government/political legitimacy, how it is derived, what political scientists think, and what we actually would like to believe it means, and finally some of own my views on this entire affair.
Please note here that political legitimacy is an “essentially contested concept/term” and can have different meanings to different peoples. I hope to come back to this term later in this analysis.
In most people’s minds today, when we say this government is legitimate, we generally like to believe that is has been positively conferred by a governed people upon their elected officials and institutions, such that it’s future actions and appropriate use of power is legal. This is called by political scientist as civil legitimacy, where “government derives from agreement among the autonomous constituent institutions —legislative, judicial, executive — combined for the national common good; legitimate government office as a public trust, is expressed by means of public elections”. Differing from say numinous legitimacy such as those derived from theocracy or a God given right.
Several acceptable types of civil government legitimacy exist; these can be categorically identified as Traditional, Charismatic and Rational. As these titles allude to, the Traditional form implies that it is historically, traditionally and culturally accepted form of government, such as a Kingdom led by a family or tribe. The Charismatic form is one that is derived from the belief that the person picked to lead is perceived to have highly sought after attributes and qualities that make him most suitable at that time to lead. The Rational is where the governed people perceive that the form of government has been legally derived from established law and custom, such as a government with a political constitution and a representative democracy.
There are hybrids of these systems as well. For instance we can have a traditional authority system with some form or legal rational authority as well, where a King or leader maintains national unity (one people) and democratic administration under a political constitution such as the one we are endeavoring to do today in Jordan.
The English philosopher John Locke stated in The Argument of the Second Treaties, “that the government is not legitimate unless it is carried on with the consent of the governed”. So essentially we can say that the above types if carried on the consent of the governed would then be legitimate forms of government. Not until this consent is yanked by the people does it become illegitimate.
So all the above being said, would you state that we have a legitimate government? Well we can state that the elections for the most part have been conducted fairly, and by that I mean we have formed a constitution that states we will have free and fair elections, that anyone who is of Jordanian birth and citizenship, of a certain age can run for office. Albeit here, in Jordan we have quotas for minorities of race, creed and gender to even up the playing field and to allow for representation of a minority view in a future parliament. The philosophical argument for this is comparable to the argument used for “Affirmative Action”, where because of the minority status of these people, and their inability to win a place in a majority, as well as to maintain their rights as part of the nation we must establish a quota for them. By the way affirmative action can also be argued for representations of minorities in all public institutions including schools.
We can also state that in this present election slightly less than 57 percent of the registered voters took part, said to be slightly higher than election in 2003, 2007 and 2010. Note not the highest we can do, none-the-less somewhat better.
We can also state that the several large blocs of people did not vote or boycotted the elections completely for perceived ideas (fair or unfair) of the elections and their views of the basis of the legitimacy of these elections. Their voices have been heard and rejected by the at least 57 percent of the people leaving at least 43 percent (not a small number) of people for whatever reason still unsatisfied with the electoral process recently conducted. Of these 43 percent we can include people who will never vote for whatever reason. What their percentage is of the 43 percent we still do not know. Maybe a good idea for a University of Jordan political science class or a pollster to find out why (Mr. Zogby, give it a try).
Does this make this election one of illegitimacy, because such a large bloc of people stayed away, especially because this was touted to be the first of its kind in Jordan? I am truthfully not sure of the answer to this question. Too many times we have seen elections here and elsewhere, where the rules of the game dictated from the beginning have been unfair. Remember where I said above political legitimacy is an “essentially contested concept/term” and can have different meanings to different peoples”. A philosopher by the name of Walter Bryce Gallie coined this term to “facilitate an understanding of the different applications or interpretations of the sorts of abstract, qualitative, and evaluative notions — such as "art" and "social justice". Where some people can argue their point of view dogmatically (my view is right and your view is wrong), or where we can say let’s agree to agree where his truth and your truth are correct, where we can associate with it many views as equally correct, where everyone seems to agree about fairness of each argument without the rationalization.
In any case it is safe to say, that what happened is a movement forward from the past, it is by far only the start on a hard worthwhile road. For me personally, I care not much about who rules, but by the methods and his/her desires and actions, by how they view themselves amongst the people and their creator and how that dictates their actions. I would if in a utopian world, like to be led by a moral companionate leader/s, which lies awake each night in fear that he has forgotten someone in need or hungry, someone that he could have helped but forgot to because of his busy schedule, but wants deeply to make it right. That what he wants for himself and his family, he/she wants for each and every one of the people he/she represents. That he/she feels that they are not only a caretaker/custodian for the people but of the land that we call our nation, including its environment for our latter generations.
I pray that each and one of those elected brothers and sisters feels the weight of the responsibility thrust upon them by us and does not use this authority to aggrandize themselves or their kith and kin, but the country as a whole.
God Bless Jordan and its People
comment replay 