Jordan’s Elections: Battlegrounds to Watch
Among my circle of people, there is more enthusiasm for the tidal wave of US election news, than that in Jordan. Red states, blue states, swing states, uncommitted delegates, election maps, electoral seats, fundraising, constant polling, controversial tweets…Hundreds of careers revolve around nothing else but analysis and commentary of the elections. In Jordan we don’t have this, nor do we need it (I love watching US politics, but it's not the best model to imitate). But tracking it, talking about it, looking at Jordan as a whole made of diverse pieces which identify politically - it's not just fun, it builds our political identities. It makes us enthusiastic to play our role in affecting the results. That’s how I feel as a (maybe) voter. I want to see how the election can turn and what will drive it.
We’ve never had an election map. It's not because we don’t have political analysts (well, we don’t have many actually) but because we don’t have much data. As much as I appreciate their user-friendly page on the political parties, on historical voter data the IEC website can be complicated. CSOs like RASED tend to release bullet points of their work rather than the full data and methodology. If I don’t see a transparent methodology, how can I cite it? But most critically, Jordan has changed its election laws several times making each election cycle unique and impossible to compare. 2016 and 2020 largely used the same Election Law, but the COVID-19 restrictions were so restrictive they were essentially a new bylaw.
Essentially, below is what I can create based on the data available. I hope that after September 10 we will see all the voter data, party self-evaluations, polling, and focus groups on why Jordanians voted and how they made up their minds.
Three things you should know:
Safe Districts: By safe districts, really I am looking at predictable results. First, with parties there are no predictable results because, again, we have no data. Our only data about how citizens will vote for parties, is that most citizens will not vote. When it comes to the single mandate seats (or what they call the “local” seats), it is a little easier. Still, constant election code changes and redistricting make it difficult to predict. Even with the dozens of MPs running for re-election, there are no certainties. In Jordan we only have two kinds of safe seats. I would say that many places in Amman are a safe bet for the IAF. Second, the tribal seats like the three Badia districts are very predictable. It may not be the same face, or even the same last name, but they will represent the same people through a pre-election agreement by the tribes.
Battlegrounds: How do we know which areas are battlegrounds? My approach is to 1) look at where the IAF is running its candidates. They are running where they know they have voters. 2) where redistricting has shifted voter blocs. Using that methodology that gives us Zarqa (two districts combined into one. Previously a safe Bani Hasan district and a safe IAF district are now combined. Who will emerge victorious?) All of Amman, with special attention to the second district, (most of the IAF support. Combined districts. Usually low voter turnout makes it easier for a list with good ground game in forming a loyal base and getting them to their voting stations on September 10.) Also, Amman is home to the majority of voters. Every party is going to be focused on Amman. Balqa (same situation as Zarqa with a tribal district and IAF district competing). Irbid 1st district (the only IAF list in Irbid. Uncertain turnout for any of the lists. Large population with several seats at stake).
It's not really about parties: The parties take a lot of attention because they are new. We Jordanians are new to the idea of partisan identities. The current batch of party leaders are colorful and the campaign styles range from radical to populist to almost wooden. We are excited about parties because of their potential and their ability to actually represent. Citizens can have more say in government decision making through effective parties. BUT, for September 10, the power lies in the single mandate districts. These are the ones the voters will find relevant. In fact, many voters may go on September 10 to vote for a single mandate candidate and not even vote on the party list ballot, or just guess at a party that sounds good. Voters may clearly see the benefit in voting for a (local) candidate who represents their home district and can improve their lives. Voters may not immediately see the benefit of voting for a party list that is not tied to their district or providing benefits.
Mithaq may have its party list, but its coalitions in the single mandate seats will double its numbers. Azm is a new party with a vague brand but they have strong single mandate candidates. The same with Taqqadom (but with a clearer platform). The IAF will almost triple its party list seats through single mandate candidates. A single mandate candidate represents a specific geographic district which can bring a large network, influential voter blocs, and pressure points on municipal services. They will provide parties talking points to show their commitment to improved services. They will provide parties with a wider array of resources from neighborhoods to Ministries. When we want to look at these elections, parties are the crucial innovation this year, but we still need to focus on those single mandate candidates.
Additional Points to keep in mind:
The only political party that is using the same name for their single mandate (local) list and the party (national) list is the IAF - with 63 single mandate candidates and 38 on their party list.
With the new redistricting and lack of data, it is difficult to estimate the possible voter turnout vote - but let's assume that the turnout this year will be 30-35% with the three Badia districts bringing the highest and Amman and Zarqa taking the lowest turnout.
The battle grounds above are likely the lowest turnout numbers. If that is true then I estimate the IAF will gain even more seats, between 25-30 seats. They have a well-established voter base and committed voters, and they can get their people out on election day. A lower turnout benefits those parties that can definitely “get out the vote”. We don’t know if any of the new parties or lists can do that. (To an extent, we know that the Islamic National Party can, but in the shadow of the IAF).
Look at the IAF campaigning - all values driven and light on policies. They talk about protest, standing up against the Occupier, remembering the model of the Prophets Companions, being a link between the great Arab states. There are also some patriotic military montages but look closely - the portrait of Firas Al Ajlouni, and the uniforms and guns are from the 1967 war. This isn’t military policy but nostalgia. This value driven campaign might also encourage the uncertain voters - those who are likely to vote but stay home and the slightest excuse. The IAF knows how to play the game. They launched a national list that might get around 8 to 9 seats but their real work is being done in the single mandate district.
As for the other political parties that have a heavy presence in local districts. Mithaq has close to a 100, Eradah as well, National Islamic Party will run close to 50 with and Taqaddom both close to 40. They are clearly running these combined lists to guarantee their people make it into parliament, but “their people” are the issue here. Were these candidates recent additions thanks to handshakes and deals? Or are these founders of the parties? We can't fault political parties for playing politics. But everything this election (really, everything) establishes a tradition for the next one, for this generation of first time voters (over 11% of voters are just old enough to be first time voters), and for the jumpstart to the modernizations. Back to the question, what is the relationship between the party and these single mandate candidates? Another question, why are so many party members choosing to run as independents and deny their party the chance to claim higher numbers - and more funding from the state? It comes down to power. For some, the independence of voting and behaving as they wish (and not under a party leader’s demands) is worth more than the party support. For others, party support gives them the boost they need and they can sacrifice some professional autonomy for the stability party support brings.
Most other parties are using this election to create a brand, a presence, and so they poured effort into their national list. They also may not have the political power to run a single mandate candidate. The IAF is already an established political party and their party list is just an add on. They did put forward a star studded lineup on the list, but their single mandate is the true force. The local lists are people with local networks (specifically in the education sector) and you might think this is only a branding tactic but it is not, these local representatives are the ones who made the teacher’s strike happen, these committed political members were the ones on the ground working and networking and urging others to walk out and join the strike. This is no easy feat in a politically suspicious society, and I don't need to tell you how successful they were. So these hard working ants are the ones that are running locally, they are the ones that can bring home results and they are the reason I believe the IAF will score more seats than they did before.
My approach was looking at turnout, number of voters and new districts which then I matched with previous electoral results, for my conclusion of 25-30 seats for IAF, slightly more than 30 for Mithaq, slightly less for Eradah and the National Islamic party. This means the big blocs of IAF and Mithaq will be the opponents in the new Parliament. There will still be a strong scattering of independent, and largely tribal MPs. The party list will elect around 10 parties which will all have a chance to advance their visions but without a sufficient number to do much.
My Take
We’re now in the Hunger Games politically. In a few weeks almost two dozen parties will likely recognize their fate and dissolve or gradually go bankrupt. There are governorates like Karak that have lots of seats due to redistricting. By the end of the election they will start a new course and see if they have gained anything and what leverage they have lost. For Karak specifically, they had 11 streams of influence and now they have 8. Who wins and who loses from that change? Finally, there are entrenched political interests that may have been safe in a certain district (like Zarqa #2 or Amman #5) which no longer exists. This election will reveal if they can survive the redistricting or not. Those are the three possible losers - small parties, constituencies with fewer seats, and those secure in the old way.
If you've been following my writings on Jordan’s political landscape, you know that most of the party platforms suggest either a) small tweaks to the status quo) or b) no real program or platform. The exceptions to this are the IAF and the left (HASHD, Baath, etc.) However, since the latter two do not have the capacity to launch nationwide lists and campaigns and their relevance and membership in Jordanian society are low, IAF stands alone as the single party that can change the identity, the governance and a party’s role in the Jordanian state. While one can argue that the Jordanian parliament does not have that much authority, Parliament has several oversight functions such as following up on the reports by the Audit Bureau, anti-corruption commission, and the human rights commission. Additionally, a large enough group can still act as a spoiler and delay action.
This will be my last newsletter on the Jordan elections. I view them as important, though poorly communicated. The parties are real pioneers in starting this course, but their lack of preparedness worries me. But now I will stop looking at them as an analyst and take several days to look at them as a citizen. What is the benefit to me of voting for this party or that one, or even voting at all? (I have my own answer, you need to find yours).