Jordan tribes criticise Queen Rania's 'political role'

[oberliner]

Source: BBC

A group of Jordanian tribal leaders has taken the unusual step of urging King Abdullah to curtail what they see as his wife's involvement in politics.

The 36 tribal leaders attacked Queen Rania's Palestinian origins and said she was "building power centres for her own interests".

Following uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, the king has been under pressure to make political and economic reforms.

Last week, King Abdullah sacked his cabinet and appointed a new PM.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12400274

[DURHAM D]

1. Great - tea bagger woman hating tribal leading mother-fs.

This couldn't have anything to do with the fact she is considered to be in the top 100 influential women in the world.

[oberliner]

2. You think an unelected monarch should have a role in governing?

That seems a tad undemocratic.

[DURHAM D]

3. I obviously was not addressing that issue.

I was commenting on the sexist/misogynistic a-holes. If she was ugly or wore a veil they wouldn't have the same problem.

Do you know anything about the Queen?

[oberliner]

5. Is that not part of the issue being raised here?

From the article:

"We call for a modern electoral law based on consultations with all political forces in Jordan, enhancing freedoms and the formation of a national salvation government to oversee a transparent parliamentary election," the tribal leaders' statement said.

[Alamuti Lotus]

11. were French just being misogynistic to despise Marie Antoinette?

[DURHAM D]

16. You clearly know nothing about Rania. nt

[Alamuti Lotus]

25. X

[theHandpuppet]

32. +1

Some folks should think twice before opening traps.

[davidinalameda]

4. I doubt it has too much to do with the fact that she's female

it has to do with the fact that she's West Bank while the tribal leaders are East Bank-whatever that means

they're jealous of her influence; from the article, it states that the tribes have long supported and held influence with the royal family; they see that slipping

[oberliner]

6. Perhaps Jordan will follow in Egypt's footsteps...

...and attempt to bring down their unelected despotic rulers.

[davidinalameda]

8. are the Jordanian leaders "despots"

[oberliner]

9. They do have an unelected monarchy with substantial power

Not an absolute dictatorship, certainly, but something akin to despotic rule, wouldn't you say?

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Most, if not all monarchies, are unelected ones...

Not sure why yr pointing out that Jordan's monarcy is an unelected one or that it's despotic. So is the British monarchy, wouldn't you say?

[oberliner]

14. Yes indeed they are

The poster seemed perhaps unaware that Jordan was ruled primarily by an unelected monarch who, unlike the British monarch, has a significant amount of power and authority.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Then it seems rather strange to use the term 'unelected monarch' only for Jordan...

The British have an unelected monarch as well, who does possess some significant powers and authority, and who, just like the Jordanian monarch, isn't a despot....

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. The Jordanian king has far more power than the British queen

He dismissed the entire cabinet last week. The British monarch hasn't had that sort of power since George III, who really could choose his own PM (eg North); since then, the PM has had to have the full confidence of Parliament, and has been chosen that way. And reply #14 is crystal clear that it's about the 'power and authority', not the 'unelected' adjective.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. The Queen has a lot of power. She dismissed Australia's PM back in 1975...

And replyt #14, as well as others in this thread, are crystal clear when they keep on stressing that the monarch is unelected. If, as you claim, it's not about that, I have to wonder why it keeps on getting mentioned...

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. No, that was Kerr, the Governor General, who did that

without consulting the queen about it. Kerr was appointed on Whitlam's advice, so don't pretend the queen had installed him to carry out her policies. And the context was a deadlocked parliament - it's back to whether the PM has the backing of parliament or not (though that doesn't mean Kerr's action was correct).

'Unelected' keeps getting mentioned because you keep mentioning it. I know you're not so naive as to really think the queen of Australia and the UK has anywhere near the power in those countries that the king of Jordan has in his, and you're just doing this because you like arguing with oberliner. You are getting very tedious about this, so I'll stop now.

[oberliner]

35. The King of Jordan dismissed Jordan's PM and appointed a new one this past week

I mention that the monarch is unelected because it seems that there is a movement afoot in the region for people to rise up against unelected leaders.

Lots of folks are watching Jordan in light of what has happened in Tunisia and Egypt - like those countries - there is/was a powerful ruler who was not chosen by the citizens of the country to rule.

[davidinalameda]

17. no

According to Montesquieu, the difference between monarchy and despotism is that in monarchy, a single person governs by fixed and established laws, whereas a despot governs by his own will and caprice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotism#Contrast_with_monarchy

Colloquially, despot has been applied pejoratively to a person, particularity a head of state or government, who abuses his power and authority to oppress his people, subjects or subordinates. In this sense, it is similar to the pejorative connotations that have likewise arisen with the term tyrant. Dictator has also developed nearly similar pejorative connotations, though despot and tyrant tend to stress cruelty and even enjoyment therefrom, while dictator tends to imply more harshness or unfair implementation of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotism

Jordan's economy has improved greatly since Abdullah ascended to the throne in 1999, and he has been credited with increasing foreign investment, attending meetings between public and private sectors, and providing the foundation for Aqaba's free trade zone. He also set up five other special economic zones: Irbid, Ajloun, Mafraq, Ma'an and the Dead Sea. As a result of these reforms, Jordan's economic growth has doubled to 6% annually under King Abdullah's rule compared to the latter half of the 1990s.<6> Foreign direct investment from the West as well as the countries of the Persian Gulf has continued to increase.<7> He also negotiated a free trade agreement with the United States, which was the third free trade agreement for the U.S. and the first with an Arab country.<8>

In 2008, King Abdullah began his Decent Housing for Decent Living campaign in which all Jordanian citizens, and even Palestinian refugees, will be guaranteed high quality residential housing with easy access to community needs such as health, education, and community activities.

Abdullah's speech at The Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law in September 2005 was entitled "Traditional Islam: The Path to Peace." While en route to the United States, King Abdullah met with Pope Benedict XVI to build on the relations that Jordan had established with Pope John Paul II to discuss ways in which Muslims and Christians can continue to work together for peace, tolerance, and coexistence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_II_of_Jordan#Politics_as_King

[Mojorabbit]

21. I met a doctor

a few months ago who came from a large family in Jordan. He had his medical school paid for by the King. Unfortunately instead of using his skills in his country he went into plastic surgery and was practicing in California doing collagen injections into lips, etc. He had nothing but good things to say about the King though.

[oberliner]

23. I'd encourage you to expand beyond the world of Wikipedia

The last one in particular reads like a press release.

[davidinalameda]

26. probably so but you're wrong

he does not meet the definition of a despot

I'm not saying he's some wise and enlightened ruler but he certainly isn't a dictator

[oberliner]

27. no - you are

He is a despotic leader. He appoints the Prime Minister himself. He can dismiss Parliament at his leisure. He can issue decrees that automatically become law. All judges are appointed by his decree and can be so dismissed at his discretion. He alone has the power to declare war and is the commander of the country's military forces.

You may think he is a benevolent despot - but he has the final say in how things are run in the country - in spite of the fact that nobody voted for him.

Thus he is, at the very least, despotic, or as I wrote "something akin to" being a despot.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. No, he's right on this one.

A despot is someone who's an oppressive dictator. Many of the powers you've described are those held by other monarchs of constitutional monarchies. Would you describe those other monarchs as 'despotic leaders' for those same reasons you listed in yr post?

[oberliner]

33. No he isn't

A despot is not someone who's an oppressive dictator. It is someone with absolute power. This particular monarch has such power. The Queen of England doesn't.

You really should read up more on the Jordanian monarchy and despotism. Most people understand that Jordan is not, in reality, a constitutional monarchy, any more than North Korea is a democratic people's republic.

I would also suggest you check out Richard Silverstein's blog. It's called Tikun Olam. That blogger identifies the Jordanian ruler as a despot.

As does the New York Times:

The king, who just turned 49, has absolute power here, and advocates of reform increasingly say they want him to become a constitutional monarch , a symbol of the state but not in charge of it. The prime minister would be elected, not appointed. While it is hard to gauge how widespread this view is, it is heard from both Palestinians and East Bankers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/world/middleeast/05jordan.html?pagewanted=all

[riderinthestorm]

7. Oh I'm sure it's both. It's not realistic to underestimate patriarchy's hatred for powerful women nt

[cascadiance]

24. It's interesting to watch her interview on "The View" to get a feeling for her..

I'd also seen her talking to James Zogby earlier on his show.

I think she shows some sentiments towards helping women's education and furthering things like dealing with climate change, etc. so I think one needs to look at these reports with a grain of salt.

Though she may live in a sheltered world within Jordan where she doesn't have to deal with the day to day difficulties of the poor in that country, I think from what I see here, is that she's the kind of person (and perhaps the king as well) that could be persuaded to make changes to make sure that problems are dealt with and that they aren't as consciously trying to exploit the poor in their country as is done in other countries by their leaders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9X3pIX7UoU

[Odin2005]

10. I find it Ironic that people bash this opressive monarchy yet adore the ruler's wife.

:crazy:

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Do you agree with the criticism of Queen Rania? n/t

[oberliner]

15. I agree that criticizing the queen ought not to be "taboo"

As to the content of the criticism itself, I am not sure that I know enough about the domestic political situation in Jordan to be able to express agreement or disagreement.

To me, the significance is that hitherto unheard of criticism of the unelected rulers of Jordan is taking place. In light of what has been going on in Egypt and Tunisia, this seems noteworthy.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. No-one has suggested criticism should be taboo. I asked you something different...

And this article isn't about criticism of the entire monarchy(using the term 'unelected rulers' appears really strange when yr describing a system that's exactly the same type as the UK and here in Australia), but of the Queen specifically, which indicates a sexist slant to the appeals to the King to stop her. She's very active in championing the cause of women in Jordan, amongst other very worthy issues. None of this is what would be considered to be 'political power', and is the same as back when Princess Diana campaigned against land-mines and other causes....

[oberliner]

22. AP: Jordan tribes break taboo by targeting queen

AMMAN — Popular discontent in Jordan has taken a new turn with unprecedented public criticism of King Abdullah II's wife, Queen Rania, who stands accused of "corruption" by large tribes.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hF2bnxbMFqWrESNtwFFzDuHeL6lQ?docId=CNG.4f6d274f3aeb88a025c7211f3b0a1ee7.3b1

That was another article that I read on the same topic.

France 24 carried the same headline. At the time that I posted the BBC article, that "taboo" headline was under "related stories."

That was the component of this story that I found to be interesting. The impression at least that a taboo has been broken and that people are speaking out against the monarchy in a way that was previously not done.

I am wondering if the events in Tunisia and Egypt relate to this story.

You think the monarchy in Jordan functions in exactly the same was as the monarchy in the UK? Doesn't the Jordanian king have and exercise significantly more actual authority in Jordan than the monarchs do in the UK and Australia?

[Matilda]

28. The tribes charge that Rania's family are profiting from her status as wife of the king.

Wouldn't be the first time in history that it's happened, and it may be a valid point.

On the other hand, Rania may just be too westernised for their tastes.

It was Abdullah's great-grandfather, Abdullah I, who consolidated his power with the backing of the tribes, who are Bedouin and therefore very proud. He couldn't have become emir, and later king, without their support, so Abdullah would do well to make sure they don't become too discontented.

The tribes should never be underestimated in ME countries - it's one of the greatest mistakes made by the western powers in their dealing with Iraq, Afghanistan, et al.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. So, do you think there's no sexism in the accusations?

I'd be interested to know what you think...

As I said in my previous post, they're not speaking out against the monarchy. They're speaking out against the Queen, not the King. If it was really criticism of the monarchy, the criticism would be of the King as well, which it's not...

No, I don't recall saying the monarchy functions in exactly the same way. What I said was it has the same system as the UK and here, which is that it's a constitutional monarchy. btw, just so you know, the UK and Australia have the same monarch. I'd be interested to know what differences yr aware of when it comes to the British and Jordanian monarchies.

[oberliner]

36. Was there sexism in the accusations against Leila Trabelsi?

Both she and Queen Rania appear to have been criticized for the way their lavish lifestyles contrast with the poverty afflicting many of their country's citizens.

Do you not see any parallels between the two?

The statement itself makes a point to draw such a comparison.

It's certainly possible that sexism plays a role, but, again, I just think there are some similarities between the conditions that led (or are leading) to the fall of the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt and the situation in Jordan.

Statements like: “We reject outrageous birthdays that come at the expense of the poor and the treasury.” with respect to Queen Rania seem to echo faintly the kind of comments made about the Tunisian first lady.

Perhaps they fear making a direct statement against the king himself. Remember that any criticism of the royal family has always been completely taboo. Maybe this is a way of easing into being able to criticize the king himself.