King Abdullah’s regime is cracking down on protesters who
want reforms and, perhaps, a constitutional monarchy.

The Jordanian government, which is a close ally of the U.S.,
has learned the wrong lessons from the revolutions sweeping across the Arab
world. Instead of opening up, the government has cracked down on an emerging
movement of peaceful youth demanding reforms and democratic freedoms.

Jordanian youth emulated their peers, particularly those in
Tunisia and Egypt, by calling for an open ended sit-in to put forward their
demands and aspirations. It took just 24 hours for the government to unleash
its thugs, armed with stones, and riot police to break up the gathering. More
than 100 people were injured and one killed as the government announced a ban
on sit-ins it said “could disrupt life” in the capital.

In doing so, the Jordanian government has made the same
mistake as other regimes that have faced social upheaval: It responded with
violence and threats, thus alienating wider segments of society and fueling
more anger and frustration.

This reaction is not only a mistake but marks a major
misreading of the situation. Unlike in other countries, in Jordan there has
been a consensus in support of the continuity of the Hashemite monarchy; for
while Jordanians are determinedly demanding change, it is not regime change but
rather changes in the regime that they seek.

Conflicting interests

Even the young people who started the March 24th movement,
as they call themselves, made it clear that they supported King Abdullah but
rejected the security services’ domination of the country’s media and political
sphere.

The crackdown and subsequent celebrations by self-described
“loyalists” clearly signal that some forces within the country oppose
change, lest they lose their grip on power.

Jordanians are not calling for the downfall of the regime,
merely for freedom and justice. The people’s demands are clear: A new electoral
law — to replace the archaic law that limits the representation of the
opposition — free and fair elections, an end to rampant corruption in the upper
echelons of government and a representative and accountable government.

But these demands would require the sort of fundamental
changes the regime has signaled are off limits. The Jordanian government is
specifically concerned about rising calls for the establishment of a
constitutional monarchy, which would entail reducing King Abdullah’s powers so
that the king would no longer appoint or dissolve governments or disband
parliaments — prerogatives he seems reluctant to give up.

For many young people, empowered by the achievements of
youth in other Arab countries, it is difficult to accept that Jordanians should
not be able to elect their own government.

The king has already promised a new era and the government
has started a national dialogue, even accepting the need to discuss necessary
constitutional amendments that could be a prelude to a more representative, if
not quite an elected, government.

So the crackdown on protesters came as a surprise and seemed
to signal a return to the type of siege mentality that has defined previous
Jordanian governments – perhaps motivated by a fear that the sit-in would lead
to the creation of a mass movement challenging the king’s executive powers.

Demographics of change

Its accusation that the Muslim Brotherhood, the most
influential opposition group in the country, had stirred up the protests
appeared to be intended to split the population by appealing to fears of the
supposedly Palestinian-dominated Brotherhood among Jordanians of East Bank
descent. And in so doing it has succeeded in deepening an already simmering
crisis and further undermining social cohesion within the country.

Jordanians of Palestinian origin constitute around half of
the country’s six million people and this dynamic partly explains why
Jordanians have shied away from calling for regime change; for the Hashemites
are widely seen as guarantors of stability in the face of Israeli extremists’
calls for the establishment of a substitute Palestinian state in Jordan.

King Abdullah, unlike many other leaders, has so far not
been the target of the Jordanian people’s wrath. The fact that the regime is
far more tolerant of dissent than neighboring countries, like Syria, has
certainly helped. But Jordanians aspire for better and cannot confine
themselves to merely comparing their situation with those worse off.

Last Friday’s bloody showdown has dealt a serious blow to
national unity and further undermined the government’s declared commitment to
economic and political reforms. A tense and suspicious atmosphere now prevails
and threatens an otherwise strong potential for peaceful and democratic
reforms.

The Jordanian people have spoken, loudly and unequivocally,
but they are no longer sure that they are being heard.

Lamis Andoni is an analyst and commentator on Middle Eastern
and Palestinian affairs.