On November, 13, 2007 12:06 PM , AlurduniAlhurr
from United States said:

question for you Batir,Why you always blame "the tribe" for the problems of politics and economics in Jordan ,and can the Hashamites be blamed for such predicament???

On November, 13, 2007 1:58 PM , hamede
from Jordan said:

why dont you say thanks to the gov for keeping jordan tribal country.

On November, 13, 2007 2:16 PM , batir
from Jordan said:

Hamede you are right but I think the forces that want to maintain the tribal nature are trans-governmental forces. In fact, the central government is losing power to both the private sector and privatization elite as well as to tribal elites.
Al Urduni I do not blame the tribes only but a package of causes which are more comfortable with the status quo. This includes private sector, political parties, and many others.

According to the poll 3.4 % of Jordanian think that the parliament's duty is to monitor the government and 1.7% think its duty is legestlation.

Brilliant

On November, 13, 2007 3:15 PM , masalha1
from Jordan said:

batir,
The problem is not in the one man one vote, the problem is in the distribution of the seats, its unfair when 70 thousand or so voters in one district have one seat and 70 thousand voters in another district have seven ( yes seven ) seats.
Your claim that if we have 110 districts and 110 seats will start a real war in election between tribes is not realistic, in the U.S. they go by one vote, one seat per district, however they redistrict every few years depending on the voters count in that district.
The point is if every 50 thousand Jordanians get represented by one parliament member, we will have a better representation, and a better voters distribution.

On November, 13, 2007 9:19 PM , batir
from Jordan said:

Masalha plz do not compare the USA elections to Jordan. There they have a society that votes for parties rather than personalities. In our country candidates have been attacked for the crime of approaching the "areas" in which supporters for their rivals live! This is the case for a 3 winners district so how will it end up when only one will prevail? A horror movie, I reckon!

On November, 14, 2007 4:35 PM , masalha1
from Jordan said:

c'mon Batir I know better than that, I was emphasizing on the fairness of the voters distribution, ( one man, one vote, one seat per district, for every 50 thousand Jordanian) is that impossible??
Alot of rhetoric being said about tribalism as if it is a social disease, its not, we all belong to one tribe or another, it just became a substitute for political parties, reason? 40 plus years of banning political parties, yes we misuse, abuse the system, but that did not stop the people of Mauritania from electing a parliament they can be proud of.
We can blame the tribal system for all of our miseries but we all know why the government came up with this voting system.
We have an Identity crises Sir. and unless we admit to it and deal with it we will be for the rest of our lives listening to the governments scary tactics of Jordanian and palestinians, and the last game between Faisaly and Wehdat proves my point.

On July, 01, 2009 9:06 PM , Bahjat Tabbara
from Jordan said:

Every electorate is designed for a purpose, in Jordan's case it is to provide rubber-stamp legislators on critical issues. Tribalists are not 'pro-West' or 'pro-East' & their evaluation of legislation rarely takes the form of a politically binding framework, that is to say there is no 'left' or 'right' view. The only real issue of debate occurs at issues that concern or directly impact on tribes. For example, the North or South is afforded disproportionate representation & always wants a government with sufficient representation.

The problem (I believe) ultimately lies in an ineffective party system & no public consensus when it comes to debate, discussion or even reading. Jordanians are more concerned about the cost of basic items (fuel, food, medicine, transport etc) than discussing ways of improving, health-care or education. Public debate or discussion is unheard of & not desired or even done, if it wasn't for NGO sponsored 'town-hall' meetings they wouldn't occur

On July, 01, 2009 9:12 PM , Bahjat Tabbara
from Jordan said:

I don't believe in one-man/one-vote, I'd much rather modify the system for 'majority vote' (i.e. 50% plus one) with some kind of a political party system or public consensus. The current system doesn't produce majority representatives, one only needs (say) 15% to win a seat & will continue to represent such a small group (tribe?) rather than community. In the meantime, Christians (a much championed example of co-existence) have unearned seats & so do women (if we were so equal why do they need seats?) I'd much rather abolish EVERY quota, & re-organise a 'majority-vote' system. Whether it will empower political parties remains to be seen.

In the meantime, one-person/one-vote serves its purposes & in a way it's sad that no constructive debate & discussion took place prior to the system going to one-person/one-vote. The debates are no more productive but the candidate now answers to far fewer people than in the past (as little as 15% or even less as opposed to 'at least 50% plus one') of their district.