AMMAN – The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was supposed to take a big step (this week) toward becoming the democracy that both its people and its rulers say they want it to be.

But instead of a breakthrough vote that might have seen this desert state emerge from a long history of one-man rule, the parliamentary elections will again return a slate of pro-government deputies with few duties other than to meekly pass King Abdullah II’s decrees into law — just like every election held since this developing nation of 5.6 million people first began its slow crawl toward democracy 18 years ago.

Terrified by the rise to power of Hamas in the neighbouring Palestinian territories, and shaken by the chaos in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region, Jordan in recent years has postponed a series of planned electoral reforms that were supposed to have been in place by now, and instead moved to further tighten controls on dissent and free speech.

In the past few months alone, the government has barred some of its harshest critics from running for office, sparred with election observers over access to polling stations and derailed plans to open the country’s first privately owned, independent television channel.While the country’s emboldened Islamist movement is crying foul — and some liberals accuse the government of using the spectre of extremism to quash all opposition — much of the secular elite is quietly supporting King Abdullah’s go-slow approach to democracy, fearing that too much openness could expose Jordan to the kind of chaos that has engulfed its neighbours.

“People say, ‘What kind of democracy is there in Iraq? What kind of democracy is there in Palestine?’ And if you ask them what kind of democracy they want for Jordan, they can’t answer that,” said Roula Attar, director of the Amman office of the National Democratic Institute, a democracy promotion group funded by the United States government.

As in the past, the 110-seat parliament will be filled according to a Byzantine electoral code that allocates a disproportionate number of seats to sparsely populated rural areas of the country that are controlled by tribes traditionally loyal to the king. Women, Christians and ethnic minorities are also guaranteed seats, while urban centers such as Amman and neighbouring Zarqa, where both the liberal and Islamist opposition movements have their base, are severely under-represented.

It’s the Islamists that the government fears most. Jordan’s best organized political movement, the Islamic Action Front, is linked to Hamas through the international Muslim Brotherhood. Its members claim that if there was ever a free and fair election here, they would repeat the success Hamas had at the ballot box last year, when the Palestinian faction shocked even its own supporters by winning control of the Palestinian government.

That won’t happen in Jordan this time out, because the IAF is only half-heartedly taking part in the elections, fielding just 22 candidates. The movement, which won 17 seats in the last parliament after fielding 30 candidates in the 2003 vote, says there’s no point running a full slate, since the system is gerrymandered to ensure they never get close to power.

“The government is afraid of the Islamic movement. To them, Islam equals terrorism. That’s a motto for them, and the U.S. and the E.U. are supporting this because they want to keep real Muslims away from government,” said Jihad Ali, a campaign worker for the IAF who last week helped organize an election rally in the Jabal al-Hussein refugee camp, a collection of ramshackle concrete buildings in the heart of Amman that is home to some 30,000 Palestinians.

Jordan’s government is hailed in the West but reviled by many Islamists around the region for policies that include a 13-year-old peace treaty with Israel and tacit support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

While the IAF has support both inside and outside of Jordan’s large Palestinian community, the similarities with Hamas are unmistakable. Both movements rally the poorest and angriest members of society under the simplistic slogan “Islam is the solution.” Mr. Ali and other supporters speak of the need for “resistance” against Israel, the United States and the West and even sport the same green ball caps that Hamas did while campaigning in the Palestinian elections.”Gaza is a good example for us,” Mr. Ali said, referring to the violent, impoverished stretch of Mediterranean coast that has been under Hamas control since a military takeover in June. “We hope an Islamic takeover will happen here too.”

Though opinion polls suggest that fewer than 20 per cent of Jordanians would vote for the IAF, such words chill the hearts of Jordan’s liberals. Many say their worst nightmare would be an IAF takeover, and admit they see the logic in slowing the transition to democracy .

Many observers say that while the system has deep flaws, Jordan can’t risk radical reforms at a time when the country, which is host to at least 500,000 refugees from the war in Iraq plus upwards of 1.8 million Palestinians, is a lonely oasis of stability amid a Middle East in crisis.

“I’m working for a civil society organization and I’m fighting the government for us to have more monitoring of the election,” said Amer Bani Amer, head of the al-Hayat Centre for Civil Society Development, a Jordanian group that will provide independent monitoring of the elections. “But in the end I’m Jordanian, and I want what’s best for my country. We need to go down the road to more freedoms, but we need to go slowly. If we had the same system as Canada tomorrow, the country would collapse.”

The Globe and Mail in Toronto, Canada.