A tweet by prominent Jordanian constitutional and legal expert and former minister Noufan Al-Ajarmeh has once again raised questions about whether the Islamic movement’s announcement of changing its party’s name from “Islamic Action Front” to “Nation Party” will end the dispute and crisis with the authorities or open the door again to legal interpretations that hinder defusing the dispute.
Al-Ajarmeh considered that choosing the name “Nation Party” involves a direct violation of the texts of at least two articles of the Parties Law, which stipulate in the text that the name and logo of any Jordanian party must be “not identical” to any other party inside or outside the country.
The political translation of Al-Ajarmeh’s words is that the Independent Election Commission may reject the name “Nation Party” as an alternative to the “Islamic Action Front” party because of what is supposed to be a violation, based on what has been circulating throughout the past week, about the existence of a local party licensed in 1994 bearing the same name, even though it does not have a legal personality now due to the cancellation of previous parties, according to the law.
Al-Ajarmeh considered that choosing the name “Nation Party” directly violates the provisions of at least two articles of the Political Parties Law.
Moreover, Al-Ajarmeh and a number of observers seem to be referring to the Sudanese “Umma” Party, as the text states that it is not identical to any other party inside or outside the country. This phrase, “not identical,” could be the legal basis for an additional political campaign against the Islamist movement, preventing it from registering the new name or forcing it to add the word “Jordanian” to “Umma Party,” after the commission previously insisted on removing the word “Islamic” in accordance with what it claimed were the requirements of legal governance.
Al-Ajarmeh’s statement, if it later becomes an official position, will return the crisis with the Islamists to square one, after they had, in their estimation, made a great deal of concessions and legal compliance, with reference to changing the name, as well as approving amendments that the party was asked to make, in a legal memorandum, to its basic system.
The bureaucratic hypothesis, which has not yet been officially announced, is that the Islamic Action Front party, in its compliance with the law, chose a provocative name that suggests continued ideological ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been legally banned for over a year. This is, in reality, merely an unannounced bureaucratic hypothesis that cannot be resolved without referring to the judiciary and interpreting the laws. However, some voices have already decided to counter Al-Ajarmeh's statements with differing interpretations of the text. Here, specifically, human rights activist Ziad Al-Majali spoke about the need to note the difference in the provisions of the Political Parties Law between non-compliance and absolute non-compliance.
Legal activist Alaa Al-Kayed also noted a methodological point in online discussions, mentioning a legal provision that suggests a requirement for non-matching between the name and logo, not just one of them. He cited the recent approval and licensing of some parties by the commission, despite their names being identical to those of non-Jordanian parties, such as the "Progress" and "Will" parties. Al-Kayed's perspective suggests that most local parties, upon investigation, may have names similar to those of foreign parties, with the difference, or what should be, being the logo. The criterion in this case, he argues, is to consider both the name and logo when applying the non-matching standard.
In practical terms, these early legal debates suggest that the approach taken by the Islamic Action Front party during its largest general conference in the country, in an attempt to resolve the dilemma of choosing and changing its name, may face a new crisis. This new crisis stems from the selection of a name that those close to the official authorities believe also violates the law and evokes foreign ideological rhetoric. Here, advice may emerge urging the Islamists, at the very least, to add the word "Jordanian" to the new name, as another moderate Islamist party has done.
It can be said that the features of a new crisis have begun to appear in the legal debates that are causing trouble for the new Umma Party even before its name has been officially registered, and these are debates that no one knows yet how they will end in a specific way.
It is likely that those advocating for escalation and confrontation with Islamists are stirring up trouble once again.
confrontation with Islamists are stirring up trouble once again.
It is likely that those advocating for escalation and confrontation with the Islamists are stirring up trouble once again. The issue is less about the legal foundation and more about the theatrical display by members of the National Islamic Front party at their recent general conference, where they celebrated the adoption of the new name and then chanted a slogan deemed provocative without explicitly stating it: “Congress Party, how wonderful you are! Congress Party, we pledge allegiance to you!” The matter may extend beyond this ceremonial pledge, which is meaningless outside the context of the Islamist movement's base's desire to resolve the crisis with the state, even if it represents a dispensable display, regardless of its spontaneity.
What will soon be presented to the Islamists is predictable. It will involve choosing a name that doesn't conform to legal standards, proceeding with a provocative and theatrical approach, and resorting to an unconstitutional pledge of allegiance scenario that even some officials consider to belong to the past, specifically to the Muslim Brotherhood. The question then becomes: How will the Islamists respond?
It is likely that those advocating for escalation and
Tags:
asiawest
