King Abdullah II followed Prime Minister Samir Rifai's resignation with the appointment of former PM Maarouf Bakhit, a Jordanian loyalist with military roots. While Islamists had called for Rifai's resignation or dismissal, they again reacted negatively to the King's choice, saying [1] that Bakhit is incapable of undertaking political reform. The King met [2] with opposition Islamist leaders, whose political demands include reforming Jordan's electoral law [3] and ending Jordan's peace treaty with Israel. Jordan's 2010 electoral law implemented a system of virtual subdistricts which was confusing for voters, and kept district boundaries gerrymandered to heavily favor Bedouin areas over urban areas with large Palestinian-Jordanian populations.
After the meeting with the King, Islamist leaders indicated that the meetings had been ‘clear and candid,’ but that their protests against [4] Bakhit would continue. Bakhit then went one step further and invited Islamists to participate in his newly formed cabinet, which the Islamists turned down. This turn of events sparked a discussion amongst Jordanian tweeters. Naseem Tarawnah began [5]:
Bakhit asks Islamists to join his cabinet but they opt out. What a squandered opportunity! http://is.gd/fPVCsp #REFORMJO #JO
Ali Abu-Nimah asked [6]:
@tarawnah @jawazsafar Haven't they called for free elections based on a fair election law? That would be their test.
Tarawnah suggested [7]:
@avinunu if they took up the offer they'd have had frontrow seats to actually shaping the election law. @JawazSafar
Ali Abu-Nimah argued [8]that the Islamists would merely be legitimizing Bakhit's government without obtaining an real power.
@tarawnah @jawazsafar if I were them I would not. Responsibility without power is a losing game. More leverage outside for now.
Tarawnah retorted [9]:
@avinunu only leverage they have is that of complaining they're not part of the process. that card gets burned when u turn down an invite.
Abu Nimah replied [10]:
@tarawnah they are asking to be part of a transparent process with fair rules not a rigged one where they're given a role as a favor.
Abu-Nimah then referred [11] to the 1991 government [12], in which several Muslim Brotherhood members held cabinet officers for a period of a few months, but were unable to execute their program of reform.
@tarawnah I am old enough to remember 1991 and so are they. Same game.
Abu-Nimah added [13]:
@tarawnah Jordan is not yet a country where governments can decide policy independently or even against wishes of the monarch.
The discussion then centered on whether or not cabinet members have a serious role in shaping policy, and thus could shape a new election law through a presence in the cabinet. Tarawnah argued [14]:
@avinunu wrong. vision shaped by king, policy shaped by govt. thats the way it works here.
Abu Nimah referred back to the Islamists, arguing [15]:
@tarawnah they do not need to be in cabinet to help shape election law. Wielding executive power today has nothing to do with it.
And Mohammad Younes agreed [16] with Abu Nimah:
@tarawnah isnt it kinda obvious that after 20+ years in Jordan governments rule is very minor in political reform? @avinunu
Additional Twitter conversations about Jordan's political future are taking place at #reformJo