Two Political Universes
There is an old Paul Newman film (Harper) where he tells someone, “You've got a way of starting conversations that ends conversations.” I thought of that when I realized the Islamic Action Front has a way of beginning debates that end debates. More on that later.
Following the speech of the Prime Minister to Parliament (covered in last week’s newsletter) the Parliament had 3 consecutive sessions for MPs to debate the PM’s address. Several MPs gave speeches. Some parties had several speakers (the IAF) and some parties chose to only have one speaker. Some MPs chose not to even speak (Jordan always has a happy handful of “window-shopping” MPs who mostly observe).
I analyzed speeches by the IAF bloc . While their speeches had, mostly, perfect structure and passionate presentation, they lacked an essential component - policy. (a little thing you might need in legislation). The IAF bloc did not provide policy alternatives, but a mobilization cry. From the start, the IAF wanted to present itself as an “authentic” voice for the people. This was a masterclass in branding, but not in policy debate. They relied on the below three axes of populism, intended for public mobilization and not intended to cooperate with the government at all.
The IAFs Three Axes:
Moral Values and Cultural/ National Identity: The majority of IAF rhetoric focused on the new school curriculum and the “external” influence on it - they squeezed that topic. Huda Otoum (my fave), in her speech, had very few explicit policy recommendations and her rhetoric primarily focused on invoking fear and triggering emotional responses. It included the fear of external influence, the urgency to protect our children from morally questionable curricula, etc. Otoum’s speech was intended to mobilize people against “zionist entities controlling the curriculum”, (meaning the US) to the weakening of Arab-Muslim identity. One quote exemplifies this, and betrays the real IAF intention “God envisions us as a balanced nation, while the national curriculum center seeks to turn us into a mere Middle Eastern entity." This brief sentence may appear fluff, but is packed with cultural touchstones. It is a religious reference, and a play on words to trigger an emotional response from hearers. The key phrase in Arabic is ”نعيش في محيط ملتهب وأعداء يتربصون بنا الله يريدنا أمة وسطا والمركز الوطني يريدنا شرقا أوسطا “ This would indicate a moral battle over identity. On one side, Divine guidance that emphasizes a moral and “balanced” identity, and entrenched against it, an institutional attempt to reframe identity along merely geopolitical lines. That is, the Islamic umma vs an attempt to dilute that into a mere geographic division. In doing so, her line seeks to rally the audience against external and internal forces that threaten their spiritual and cultural identity.” Essentially, removing the power of the curriculum from the Ministry of Education to the National Center for Curriculum Development, and letting the “West” work on it, outsources your children to a secularizing and Westernizing experiment.
Bayan Al Muhesiri led the charge on family values - the Islamist Phyllis Schlafly one might say. Ms. Muhesiri provided a patina of policy. However, all her “policy” recommendations were reactionary and restrictive. One of the more alarming parts of her remarks was this, “"Halt the integration of gender, reproductive health, and domestic violence concepts into national policies, educational curricula, and public programs." Look at the order. She starts with reproductive health and gender - two concepts that the IAF has previously introduced as Western secular values being pushed on Islamic Jordanian society, and then tying those explosive ideas to the issue of domestic violence. I have not heard Ms. Muhesiri talk about the absolute horrors committed against our women and men. In 2023 we had 16 fatalities from domestic violence - 12 females and 2 males. These victims met their deaths at the hands of their family members. We don’t even have detailed data on victims of domestic violence - these are just homicides. The stigma of reporting is still strong and remarks like these from the IAF only add to it.
Anti Elite - Social Justice Axis: Like with values and identity, the IAF again goes for a knockout. Speeches that I have analyzed which focus on the economy actually are anti-elite messages with a cover of social justice. The target seems to be the political and economic system of Jordan, not fighting inequality or discrimination. For example, Salem Abu Doleh’s speech was peppered with common grievances of almost all Jordanians - corruption, government mismanagement, and the need for social justice - specifically when it comes to the rural /urban divide. As with the rest of his comrades, Mr. Abu Doleh failed to provide ONE concrete policy recommendation. He had several demands from the government, but no policy recommendations, oversight conclusions, or even data. He focused on agriculture and our “under-utilized vast lands” decrying the urban-rural divide. He implies that these rural areas have potential but are forgotten. He doesn't explain how THEY would utilize these vast lands. He doesn't even say what the challenges are exactly. Again, the point of the rhetoric is distrust and doubt. It is a mobilization cry. They propose an assault against the “elites” - which can be a dog-whistle for anyone. Abu Doleh invokes two powerful emotions in his speech; one of anger over injustice and corruption and the other is of unity and common cause. Abu Doleh praises Jordanian citizens as if he stands with all of them in solidarity. But his goal is to stoke collective anger that can become collective action.
Sovereignty and anti-Western interference axis: I’d say this is the most dangerous axis. It encompasses the former two under “Western Interference.” It also encompasses our sovereignty — whether dependence on foreign aid/foreign agenda, or economic and energy agreements with Israel. Perhaps the most dangerous was the IAF mention of foreign military presence. For example, Dr. Musa Al Wahsh referred to military bases in Jordan, “The presence of foreign military bases in Jordan, often unknown to the public or Parliament, requires transparency and public consent.” His speech implies we have no control of our own sovereignty. He says there is a lack of transparency on foreign relations, and the lack of transparency indicates malign goals and objectives. In Dr. Al Wahsh's speech, he critiqued the lack of sovereignty on economic issues and an over-dependence on foreign aid. He argued against the energy deals with Israel, not only as a threat to Jordan's national security, but as an example of Western pressure on Jordan to have such deals. Finally, he hints at covert military operations, bases, etc., on our soil. His remarks were intended to invoke shock - shock at a threat situated on our own soil and undermining our independent decision-making.
My Take:
My analysis of the IAF MP remarks is not intended to be fearmongering, or create a moral panic. But I do want to highlight the trends in their messaging and what that says about their incentives and goals. This is not just populism. This is using populism and trigger points to tear down trust in the system and in our leadership. It is designed to divide through resentment and suspicion. So, after tracking all of the IAF's speeches in this new Parliament, it is evident where they were going with it — outrage, urgency, mobilization. The audience was clearly not the new PM or his government, but the citizenry).
None of the speeches had any actionable policy recommendations. It felt like a call-in radio show, where citizens just vent their grievances. The IAF is not in this Parliament to work alongside the government; to guide the country towards prosperity and modernization. I don’t say that because of their stance - conservatives around the world are in favor of prosperity and modernization. I say this because of their tactics. They are in this to inflame, outrage, and mobilize. They used these remarks for branding, not for advancing a platform. They are always in perpetual campaigning mode, looking for the next win and the one after that. They wanted to establish themselves as the Guardians of the Jordanian Identity.
This was blatant political theater. They started the debate, framed it, and ended it. There will be no possible policy negotiation after this. The government will be delusional if they believe they can co-opt or adopt any of their precious 2030 “economic platform.” IAF is not here for policy, but for panic.
I reviewed IAF’s economic policy, Vision 2030. While there are a lot of details and some (unattainable) recommendations and actionable policies, the overall messaging from the document is definitely political and not economic. They have designed the whole vision around moral legitimacy, one that they claim the government fails to have.
There were other interesting notes - the drama of the Labor party firing an MP, the number of MPs from political parties that voted “no confidence” in the government, the calls to reduce the number of Ministers (we have 32!), and other moments. I can cover those later.
I began this saying that the PM and the IAF crossed swords over policy - the PM clearly indicating reform and private sector development and the IAF pushing leftward. But the real swordplay is not policy (as I’ve noted) but that the PM is talking about efficient governance, and the IAF is talking against it. They are in different political universes