Is King Abdullah Doing a Good Job?
- Thread starter 852
- Start date
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
silver charm
Nobility
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2004
- Messages
- 277
Has anyone noticed a concerted effort by the JRF to portray themselves differently that what they are?
3 Examples
A) Q.Rania's Clothing (be it beautiful or not)
It does not correspond with the dire financial situation of the country she is queen of. She also does not come from an established money-d family that could bankroll her costumes.
B) The very low key public wedding of PHamzah & PNoor
There were many announcements about how PHamzah does not feel now is the time for a great celebration so he had a low key wedding. And then today's photos came out from the banquet in Aqaba & well it seems that now IS the time to celebrate.
C) PHaya's showjumping
Granted with her recent marriage this is no longer relevant but hear me out. It is very expensive to run a showjumping team in Europe (much less relocate it every year for the past 3 years.) And yet she campaigned internationally for many years without anyone supporting her besides whatever the palace gave her.
My question
1) Do any of you find this slightly disturbing?
2) Can anyone in Jordan tell us what the avg Jordanian thinks about this?
3 Examples
A) Q.Rania's Clothing (be it beautiful or not)
It does not correspond with the dire financial situation of the country she is queen of. She also does not come from an established money-d family that could bankroll her costumes.
B) The very low key public wedding of PHamzah & PNoor
There were many announcements about how PHamzah does not feel now is the time for a great celebration so he had a low key wedding. And then today's photos came out from the banquet in Aqaba & well it seems that now IS the time to celebrate.
C) PHaya's showjumping
Granted with her recent marriage this is no longer relevant but hear me out. It is very expensive to run a showjumping team in Europe (much less relocate it every year for the past 3 years.) And yet she campaigned internationally for many years without anyone supporting her besides whatever the palace gave her.
My question
1) Do any of you find this slightly disturbing?
2) Can anyone in Jordan tell us what the avg Jordanian thinks about this?
B
bluetortuga
Guest
I seriously doubt the average Jordanian would be free to express their opinion about these issues anywhere else but overseas. I'm sure they must be pissed off, seeing their royal family living in such extravagance while the people suffer. If the JRF didn't learn from the Pahlavis and the Romanovs, they won't learn from anyone until an angry mob runs the Hashemite dynasty back to the Hejaz.
Sure he can. It's called a Royal Decree.[/b][/quote]
Laws are the duty of the parliament not the king ( he can not put laws), any law has to get approved by the parliament. After that it should be signed by the king (and this is what is called the royal Decree).
If the king did not approve the law he should specify the reasons and the law should be returned to the parliament within 6 months to be discussed again.
If not approved and not returned to parliament within that period, the law passes without the approving of the king.
If returned to parliament without king signature and with the reason, then if the parliament votes again with the law it passes without the signature of the king.
I seriously doubt the average Jordanian would be free to express their opinion about these issues anywhere else but overseas. I'm sure they must be pissed off, seeing their royal family living in such extravagance while the people suffer. If the JRF didn't learn from the Pahlavis and the Romanovs, they won't learn from anyone until an angry mob runs the Hashemite dynasty back to the Hejaz.[/b][/quote]
the JRF has their own money and what Q Rania spends is from her husband's money not her father,
and as any country jordan has wealthy and middle people as well as poor people , that does not mean that the royal family should be poor because there is poor people. that is very ideal but unfortunatly it does not happen in any country.
I can only answer the first question. Yes, I've noticed, and your examples are very apt. I can only assume the so-called "low-key wedding" press was an effort to preempt criticism of its lavishness, but one would have to be of very low intelligence not to be able to see for oneself from the photos alone that it was a posh and excessive affair, especially considering the times we are in.
I also share your concern. Even though I am from a wealthy country, the lavishness often offends my sensibilities. I have a sneaking suspicion that my taxes and my support of humanitarian organizations are funding at least some of this excess. Some of the more visible members of the JRF have such a "kid in a candy store" mentality about money. I find it kind of tacky. TRULY wealthy people usually go to lengths to underplay their assets. If I were a leader of a poor country, I could never feel right about consuming so conspicuously when people nearby are struggling so hard and suffering so much. JD100 would go so far for some of them. It sort of casts suspicion on the sincerity of some of the members of the JRF's efforts to support true economic development. (I'm not referring here to someone like P. Basma, who is such a dedicated public servant.) By this I mean that, if they truly do have this kind of money to toss around, why not strike a fairer balance between their own needs and the needs of their people? KA could've taken half the wedding money and spread it around to needy people and still put on a nice celebration for CP Hamzah and Noor.
I also agree with the comment that follows your message that, much as we would like to hear from them about this subject, the Jordanians aren't necessarily free to speak out. Criticizing the JRF is a crime in their country. In addition--and this I know from having lived there for a while--many people there are either too poor to have much media access or too busy struggling through daily life to be aware of and give much thought to these issues. Although the Internet is alive and well in Jordan, not everyone has access to media that aren't carefully controlled by the JRF. It costs about JD1/hour (about US$1.40) to surf the Internet at a cafe, which is prohibitively high for many people there. So I think it's unlikely that any kind of critical mass of people even knows anything more about the JRF than what the local media presents to them, and the local media is controlled by the JRF, so it's not much more than a publicity machine.
Sorry for the long post. It's just that I've also thought long and hard about this, and it very much bothers me about royalty, especially those who rule in very poor countries. So many people see only the glitz and glamour and never stop to consider some of the underlying moral issues.
But the King can and does dissolve Parliament for relatively long periods of time, during which he can, in effect, create laws. In addition, he appoints the upper house of Parliament, so he can cherry pick people who will go along with him. They know they are beholden to him for their jobs and for their ability to support their families, so aren't very likely to go against him. The lower house is elected, so it is harder to control. But KA has influence over it. So, even though your description of the ways legislation is passed in Jordan is, to my knowledge, accurate, it doesn't really shed light on the greater truth, which is that KA can pretty much have his way with legislation.
But the King can and does dissolve Parliament for relatively long periods of time, during which he can, in effect, create laws. In addition, he appoints the upper house of Parliament, so he can cherry pick people who will go along with him. They know they are beholden to him for their jobs and for their ability to support their families, so aren't very likely to go against him. The lower house is elected, so it is harder to control. But KA has influence over it. So, even though your description of the ways legislation is passed in Jordan is, to my knowledge, accurate, it doesn't really shed light on the greater truth, which is that KA can pretty much have his way with legislation.[/b][/quote]
The king have the right to dissolve the parliament, and this is necessary in some cases , for example when Israel occupied the west bank in 1967 which was a part of Jordan, the geography and demography of Jordan has change, and the parliament no more was representing Jordan so it has to be dissolved , if the king hadn’t has that right how can that happened?
The king can not dissolve the parliament for long period, if it was dissolved a new one should be elected and should meet within 4 months, if no new parliament is elected within this period the old one restore its complete constitutional authority and meet instantaneously as if it was not dissolved and continue its work .
And the king can NOT dissolve the new elected parliament for that reason.
It happened that the parliament votes with law without the approve of the king and the law pass without his signature, and that happened at K Hussein time so the king ( any king ) will avoid disproving of laws that was approved by the parliament, in order not to be in that situation and to let democracy to take place, so that happen very little, and until now K Abdul has not be against any decision of the parliament, because it will pass without his will.
The king have the right to dissolve the parliament, and this is necessary in some cases , for example when Israel occupied the west bank in 1967 which was a part of Jordan, the geography and demography of Jordan has change, and the parliament no more was representing Jordan so it has to be dissolved , if the king hadn’t has that right how can that happened?
The king can not dissolve the parliament for long period, if it was dissolved a new one should be elected and should meet within 4 months, if no new parliament is elected within this period the old one restore its complete constitutional authority and meet instantaneously as if it was not dissolved and continue its work .
And the king can NOT dissolve the new elected parliament for that reason.
It happened that the parliament votes with law without the approve of the king and the law pass without his signature, and that happened at K Hussein time so the king ( any king ) will avoid disproving of laws that was approved by the parliament, in order not to be in that situation and to let democracy to take place, so that happen very little, and until now K Abdul has not be against any decision of the parliament, because it will pass without his will. [/b][/quote]
Seems like we are in agreement.
Alexandria
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,207
- Country
- Canada
This poll does not work due to software changes, so please disregard the numbers and votes at the top -- it is no reflection of actual member sentiments.
But by member request, I thought that at least the discussion could be carried on.
Please keep in mind our Forum Posting Rules & Guidelines and to have respect for the opinons of others even if you do not agree with them. In the least please express your opinons civily and politely.
Alexandria
Royal Forums Administrator
But by member request, I thought that at least the discussion could be carried on.
Please keep in mind our Forum Posting Rules & Guidelines and to have respect for the opinons of others even if you do not agree with them. In the least please express your opinons civily and politely.
Alexandria
Royal Forums Administrator
Oh.shelley said:But she is not King Talal's child.
I was reading it wrong. . .more like King Talal (father of King Hussein), Prince Mohammed, Prince Hassan and Princess Basma. But I still have to get in my plug for the unsung P. Sarvath, who has done much to improve education and literacy in Jordan, at all levels.I think this is a very interesting--but worrying--assessment of KA's character and modus operandi.
From The Washington Post
Playing Both Sides in Jordan
[size=-1]By Jim Hoagland
Sunday, March 27, 2005 [/size]
Pop quiz: Which Arab ruler is to George W. Bush as Yasser Arafat was to Bill Clinton?
Congratulations if you said King Abdullah of Jordan. And a tip of the hat to all those Iraqis who came up with the answer so fast. You know your neighborhood, and your neighbor.
Abdullah emulates Arafat in possessing special, drop-in-anytime visiting rights to the White House and in merchandising that access to puff up his influence at home and with other Arab leaders. The Jordanian monarch seizes every opportunity to see and be seen with the U.S. president and his senior aides. Rather than attend an Arab summit to support his unconvincing, warmed-over version of a "peace plan" with Israel, Abdullah was again stateside last week, basking in the glow of meetings with Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
And, as Arafat did, Abdullah works against U.S. interests in Iraq and elsewhere while pretending otherwise. The youthful Jordanian autocrat pulls the wool over the eyes of a Republican president as the deceased Palestinian revolutionary did with Bush's Democratic predecessor.
If there is a difference in the comparative equation, it is likely that Clinton distrusted Arafat more. In Abdullah's case, Bush again displays a disturbing tendency to overinvest in the swagger and guile of people who run or who are close to spy agencies. (See Tenet, George, and Putin, Vladimir, for details.)
I stipulate the obvious: Bush is obliged by realpolitik to work with Abdullah and with Jordan. One of only two Arab states that have peace treaties with Israel, Jordan has long been an important link in the Middle East peace process as well as a platform for U.S. covert and military activities.
But a few senior U.S. officials, less impressed with Abdullah's Special Operations background and his deep connections to the CIA, fear that the president's lavish embrace is overdone. They point to the nasty public row between Iraq and Jordan over a suicide bombing and to the apparently protected presence in Jordan of key operatives in the Iraqi insurgency. These are troubling signs being ignored by Bush.
Iraqis have not forgotten that Jordan supported Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf War in 1990 and afterward. Iraqi resources were drained by the massive breaking of sanctions and other corrupt dealings that enriched the Jordanian establishment at the expense of the Iraqi people.
Abdullah's meddling in Iraqi affairs since the overthrow of the Baathists has rekindled those resentments. The king has exacerbated tensions with his aggressive championing of his co-religionists, Iraq's Sunni minority, who provided the base of past Baathist power and of the present insurgency.
Abdullah publicly warned against the coming to power of Iraq's Shiite majority as he sought to get Bush to postpone the Jan. 30 elections. He has portrayed Iraq on the edge of a religious war. He has channeled support to CIA favorites among Iraqi factions.
So when Iraqis heard on March 14 that the Jordanian family of Raed Banna had thrown a huge party to celebrate their relative's "martyrdom" -- which consisted of killing himself and 125 Iraqis in the Shiite town of Hilla -- they said "enough."
Angry crowds sacked the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad and forced it to close. "Iraqis are feeling very bitter over what happened," Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said. Shiite leader Abdul Aziz Hakim called on Jordan to acknowledge "the meanness and lowliness of people who celebrate the killing of honorable Iraqis" and "to stop the incitement, recruitment and mobilization of Jordanian terrorists to Iraq."
Hakim should not hold his breath. Former Baathist lieutenants who are now key operatives in the Iraqi insurgency still move themselves and money around Jordan without interference. In an incident that Bush should probe, U.S. officials a few months ago identified two such Iraqis and asked that they be questioned.
But the king waved the Americans off, saying that the two were minor figures who did not have blood on their hands. "We came to know that wasn't true, as he no doubt knew back then," one U.S. official told me.
Abdullah has publicly suggested that Syria should consider Bush's demand for a withdrawal from Lebanon while privately sharing with other Arab leaders his fears that such a move would be destabilizing. And he has been more supportive of the president's push for democracy in the Arab world in Washington meetings than he has been at home.
This does not win Abdullah the world-class laurels for duplicity and deception garnered by Arafat. But then the king is still young.
From The Washington Post
Playing Both Sides in Jordan
[size=-1]By Jim Hoagland
Sunday, March 27, 2005 [/size]
Pop quiz: Which Arab ruler is to George W. Bush as Yasser Arafat was to Bill Clinton?
Congratulations if you said King Abdullah of Jordan. And a tip of the hat to all those Iraqis who came up with the answer so fast. You know your neighborhood, and your neighbor.
Abdullah emulates Arafat in possessing special, drop-in-anytime visiting rights to the White House and in merchandising that access to puff up his influence at home and with other Arab leaders. The Jordanian monarch seizes every opportunity to see and be seen with the U.S. president and his senior aides. Rather than attend an Arab summit to support his unconvincing, warmed-over version of a "peace plan" with Israel, Abdullah was again stateside last week, basking in the glow of meetings with Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
And, as Arafat did, Abdullah works against U.S. interests in Iraq and elsewhere while pretending otherwise. The youthful Jordanian autocrat pulls the wool over the eyes of a Republican president as the deceased Palestinian revolutionary did with Bush's Democratic predecessor.
If there is a difference in the comparative equation, it is likely that Clinton distrusted Arafat more. In Abdullah's case, Bush again displays a disturbing tendency to overinvest in the swagger and guile of people who run or who are close to spy agencies. (See Tenet, George, and Putin, Vladimir, for details.)
I stipulate the obvious: Bush is obliged by realpolitik to work with Abdullah and with Jordan. One of only two Arab states that have peace treaties with Israel, Jordan has long been an important link in the Middle East peace process as well as a platform for U.S. covert and military activities.
But a few senior U.S. officials, less impressed with Abdullah's Special Operations background and his deep connections to the CIA, fear that the president's lavish embrace is overdone. They point to the nasty public row between Iraq and Jordan over a suicide bombing and to the apparently protected presence in Jordan of key operatives in the Iraqi insurgency. These are troubling signs being ignored by Bush.
Iraqis have not forgotten that Jordan supported Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf War in 1990 and afterward. Iraqi resources were drained by the massive breaking of sanctions and other corrupt dealings that enriched the Jordanian establishment at the expense of the Iraqi people.
Abdullah's meddling in Iraqi affairs since the overthrow of the Baathists has rekindled those resentments. The king has exacerbated tensions with his aggressive championing of his co-religionists, Iraq's Sunni minority, who provided the base of past Baathist power and of the present insurgency.
Abdullah publicly warned against the coming to power of Iraq's Shiite majority as he sought to get Bush to postpone the Jan. 30 elections. He has portrayed Iraq on the edge of a religious war. He has channeled support to CIA favorites among Iraqi factions.
So when Iraqis heard on March 14 that the Jordanian family of Raed Banna had thrown a huge party to celebrate their relative's "martyrdom" -- which consisted of killing himself and 125 Iraqis in the Shiite town of Hilla -- they said "enough."
Angry crowds sacked the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad and forced it to close. "Iraqis are feeling very bitter over what happened," Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said. Shiite leader Abdul Aziz Hakim called on Jordan to acknowledge "the meanness and lowliness of people who celebrate the killing of honorable Iraqis" and "to stop the incitement, recruitment and mobilization of Jordanian terrorists to Iraq."
Hakim should not hold his breath. Former Baathist lieutenants who are now key operatives in the Iraqi insurgency still move themselves and money around Jordan without interference. In an incident that Bush should probe, U.S. officials a few months ago identified two such Iraqis and asked that they be questioned.
But the king waved the Americans off, saying that the two were minor figures who did not have blood on their hands. "We came to know that wasn't true, as he no doubt knew back then," one U.S. official told me.
Abdullah has publicly suggested that Syria should consider Bush's demand for a withdrawal from Lebanon while privately sharing with other Arab leaders his fears that such a move would be destabilizing. And he has been more supportive of the president's push for democracy in the Arab world in Washington meetings than he has been at home.
This does not win Abdullah the world-class laurels for duplicity and deception garnered by Arafat. But then the king is still young.
But I don't think it is a one-way street. I think they use each other. But P. Bush is the more powerful leader, so he will probably wash his hands of KA when it serves his purpose. In that sense, I think KA is being the more foolish party, because he seems to be staking his entire country's future on his relationship with the U.S. In my opinion, he is too cocky and confident given his relatively weak position. It is as though he is living in a fool's paradise, not quite understanding that the U.S.'s interests and his are not in perfect alignment.Reina said:Yes. I I am equally disturbed at Prez. Bush's degree of warmness and acceptance of KA. He just gets too trusting sometimes.
Playing Both Sides in Jordan
By Jim Hoagland
Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page B07
Pop quiz: Which Arab ruler is to George W. Bush as Yasser Arafat was to Bill Clinton?
Congratulations if you said King Abdullah of Jordan. And a tip of the hat to all those Iraqis who came up with the answer so fast. You know your neighborhood, and your neighbor. More is in here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2218-2005Mar25.html
By Jim Hoagland
Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page B07
Pop quiz: Which Arab ruler is to George W. Bush as Yasser Arafat was to Bill Clinton?
Congratulations if you said King Abdullah of Jordan. And a tip of the hat to all those Iraqis who came up with the answer so fast. You know your neighborhood, and your neighbor. More is in here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2218-2005Mar25.html
I haven't really the time to read this entire thread again, so some of my comments may be repetitive of comments by other members or I may be repeating something already addressed. My apologies for this.
I think Abdullah's role as King is different than the role of other Kings, namely European Kings (or Queens as is the case in Denmark and the Netherlands). Their roles are predominantly symbolic while Abdullah has a strong involvement in the running of the Jordanian government and decisions made by them. This in itself requires much more of Abdullah that he be up to date and in touch with what is happening not just in his own country but also in neighbouring regions and the rest of the world which Jordan may have political or social dealings with. I don't think Abdullah is unintelligent, but I also don't think he is all that intelligent either. He also isn't smart enough to have intelligent advisors to make intelligent and educated suggestions to him on the outcome or potential of his decisions or affiliations. Certain world leaders are dumb themselves but they are smart enough to have intelligent people as part of their team and to rely on their judgements. This isn't the case with Abdullah.
Life in the Middle East region is precarious at best. Peace and stability are anomolies. Abdullah's father can say that at least that (in his last years) tried to fight for peace in the region. I think that when King Hussein died the fight for peace was one major unresolved matter. Abdullah has failed to pick up on this mission and try to make his own headway with it when it is clearly an issue that would greatly benefit Jordan were it to be achieved.
Abdullah clearly has his own agenda for Jordan which I don't fault him for. Every new leader, whether elected or heriditarily succeeding into the role will want to set his or her own agenda and leave his or her own mark on the position. But at whose expense is Abdullah's agenda and who is actually benefitting from Abdullah's agenda (whatever it is).
Part of his agenda seems to be focused on garnering more financial aid for Jordan. Since becoming King we've seen him make many visits to heads of states all around the world and to the U.S. But where is the money which is coming from these countries going in Jordan? From what I read about Jordan I don't see much change for the majority of Jordanian citizens.
I think being in a position such as Abdullah's is a selfless position. There are a lot of perks but there are also a lot of expectations and obligations. Frankly, I think Abdullah is too self-serving an individual to be a King. Even as a mediocre king Abdullah is greatly lacking.
I think Abdullah's role as King is different than the role of other Kings, namely European Kings (or Queens as is the case in Denmark and the Netherlands). Their roles are predominantly symbolic while Abdullah has a strong involvement in the running of the Jordanian government and decisions made by them. This in itself requires much more of Abdullah that he be up to date and in touch with what is happening not just in his own country but also in neighbouring regions and the rest of the world which Jordan may have political or social dealings with. I don't think Abdullah is unintelligent, but I also don't think he is all that intelligent either. He also isn't smart enough to have intelligent advisors to make intelligent and educated suggestions to him on the outcome or potential of his decisions or affiliations. Certain world leaders are dumb themselves but they are smart enough to have intelligent people as part of their team and to rely on their judgements. This isn't the case with Abdullah.
Life in the Middle East region is precarious at best. Peace and stability are anomolies. Abdullah's father can say that at least that (in his last years) tried to fight for peace in the region. I think that when King Hussein died the fight for peace was one major unresolved matter. Abdullah has failed to pick up on this mission and try to make his own headway with it when it is clearly an issue that would greatly benefit Jordan were it to be achieved.
Abdullah clearly has his own agenda for Jordan which I don't fault him for. Every new leader, whether elected or heriditarily succeeding into the role will want to set his or her own agenda and leave his or her own mark on the position. But at whose expense is Abdullah's agenda and who is actually benefitting from Abdullah's agenda (whatever it is).
Part of his agenda seems to be focused on garnering more financial aid for Jordan. Since becoming King we've seen him make many visits to heads of states all around the world and to the U.S. But where is the money which is coming from these countries going in Jordan? From what I read about Jordan I don't see much change for the majority of Jordanian citizens.
I think being in a position such as Abdullah's is a selfless position. There are a lot of perks but there are also a lot of expectations and obligations. Frankly, I think Abdullah is too self-serving an individual to be a King. Even as a mediocre king Abdullah is greatly lacking.
I agree with this last post. In a country where the monarch has to actually take decisions and oversee the running of the country, it is vital that he/she be as well advised as possible. The most brilliant person cannot be expert or even good at everything. Although he made many mistakes, King Hussein did show great good sense when he made his brother Prince Hassan an active partner in running the country and gave him the mandate to do what he was good at, and what the King himself could nor would do. There is no way that King Hussein's reign would be as well regarded as it is today had he tried to go it alone. From what it appears, King Abdullah is very much a one man show.
I agree with you, Genevieve. Not only does he lack a good education himself, not only is he not surrounding himself with the best and the brightest, he is forever shuffling the deck, making it very difficult for anyone in his government to accomplish anything requiring even an intermediate-term time horizon. There are experienced, seasoned resources in the country he could call on (e.g., P. Hassan), but he chooses to surround himself with people who appear to be even weaker than he is. Perhaps these people are easier to manipulate and keep an eye on, but are they effective? What has KA accomplished in his 6+ years on the throne? So much of it appears to be smoke and mirrors to me.Genevieve said:
The expense appears to be borne most heavily by his own people.
KA is managing from the top on down, so the people who most need his help have not yet gotten it. The benefits have accrued mostly to himself and to the people in the country who least need it. A lot of it is to pay the tab for military and security. Little of it is reaching the impoverished masses who most need it.
I think neither KA nor QR has a humanitarian bone in his/her body. They both seem to enjoy the power and the visibility of their positions, but neither seems to step up to the plate and own the full set of responsibilities that comes with them. When KA first rose to power, I chalked it up to his unpreparedness and his inexperience. But six years into it, if anything, I think he is even more drunk on power and less able to see how his rule is a complete failure from the standpoint of the people in his country who are living in abject poverty.
This is rather frightening, if one thinks about it. In most professions, if someone who was uneducated and unprepared for a job were to step into it, he would still be considered a rookie after only six years. In business, he'd be lucky if he managed even one or two other people by then. But this is exactly the position KA was placed in, not entirely his own doing, but his position nonetheless. Right now, there is no Crown Prince, so the default C.P. is his young son. Who's doing the work that then-C.P. Hassan used to do for KH? I don't even think then-C.P. Hamzah could do it, because he was in America attending university. KA doesn't even appear to have a designated regent; rather he rotates that around to whomever seems to be available. He's sent Parliament home and reshuffled the ministers and the ministeries a number of times. KA spends a great deal of time outside the country and a fair amount on private holiday, so who's minding the store? I think this surely must be part of the reason it is difficult to identify any clear accomplishments during KA's rule.shelley said:
There's also the risk aspect to this lone wolf approach, though. What if something were to happen to KA? No one is being properly groomed for the job. . .there is no depth, no bench strength. I find this very irresponsible of KA, astonishingly bad leadership, for KA and only KA can perform the job of succession planning, and he is leaving his entire country quite vulnerable. After the crazy succession of his father, one might think KA would have heightened sensitivity to the need to plan for a smooth, seamless succession, but he doesn't appear to have grasped the importance of this. It's worrisome.
Whew! I thought I would get a lot of flak for not having read the entire thread before making my opinons and comments known. Good to see that others who have read this thread through also share my opinon on the job Abdullah is doing so far.
shelley said:
I don't know about it being a one man show completely. What about Rania's role in it? I know that likely she doesn't make any (or much) political suggestions or have much input in the running of Jordanian affairs and international policy. But I have this notion that she is behind Abdullah's travels and her own extensive travels to plead for aid from other governmental bodies around the world - all for the sake of Jordanian citizens and improving their lives of course. But of course that money never (or at least the majority of it) never actually reaches the Jordanians who need it. More likely the money ends up with Abdullah and Rania in some form or another, whether it be added luxuries to their home, expensive clothing or personal services (eg. grooming, stylists flown in from London, plastic surgery).
I don't think Rania would be as motivated to travel the world and "work" to plead for her fellow citizens if she didn't think that she might benefit herself in some way.
papillon said:
What is Abdullah's relationship with Hassan now? As you pointed out, Hassan was the Crown Prince for many decades and King Hussein depended on his brother a lot to not only carry out important duties but also on his input, knowledge and expertise of a variety of situations within Jordan and abroad. It would make a tremendous amount of sense and smarts for Hassan to be one of Abdullah's closest advisors if not his top advisor within his team, whether it be publicly known or confidentially.
I agree that I think Abdullah's team of confidents and associates are not exactly your Rhodes Schollars. Over the last 6 years they have advised or allowed him to do many things that didn't make sense or didn't have much positive effect or develop policies which would start a process of change in Jordan.
I think he chooses individuals who are less informed than he is simply because it is a power trip. If Abdullah is as narcassitic as I believe he is, he wouldn't want people who are more educated or smarter than him to outshine or outsmart him. No one wants a subordinate to show them up. But of course even the dumb leaders who do have educated and intelligent advisors and teams recognize that these individuals can only make him stronger by making him look smarter.
papillon said:The expense appears to be borne most heavily by his own people.
A lot of it is to pay the tab for military and security. Little of it is reaching the impoverished masses who most need it.
It really is a rather vicious and frustrating cycle for the majority of Jordanians isn't it? They see or hear about all this aid money pouring in but know that it will never reach them and not only that, there is not much they can do about it. To protest against it would most likely lead in action (often unlawful) action against them and yet to do nothing would mean that their life is stagnant and unimproved.
papillon said:I think neither KA nor QR has a humanitarian bone in his/her body. They both seem to enjoy the power and the visibility of their positions, but neither seems to step up to the plate and own the full set of responsibilities that comes with them. When KA first rose to power, I chalked it up to his unpreparedness and his inexperience. But six years into it, if anything, I think he is even more drunk on power and less able to see how his rule is a complete failure from the standpoint of the people in his country who are living in abject poverty.
Completely agree. Another vicious cyle being that once you have a small taste of power you want more. And you'll do more to get more power at all costs.
papillon said:
Had not thought of things this way. But you make an excellent point.
When you look at the other monarchies the Crown Princes do a lot of work. Look at the schedule that the Prince and Princess of Asturias keep and the amount of abroad trips Crown Princess Victoria and the Prince of Wales make each year. Granted Abdullah and Rania are younger than the Kings and Queens of the other monarchies but the role of the Crown Princes is very valuable and is important and integral in the passing of the torch. Is one really supposed to believe that as the default Crown Prince, an elementary school aged boy who hasn't even hit puberty yet is the second in command and is responsible for the sorts of sensitive business his great uncle Hassan used to do? What a joke!
The fact that Abdullah rotates and shuffles ministers frequently is also a bad sign. One of the things I think made Hussein a memorable king in the end was that he was around for so many years and that for just as many years things were relatively stable politically in Jordan. Whatever else was going on in the region and whatever poverty was being experienced and endured in the country on a daily basis you could at least count on Hussein and Hassan. But with the frequent changes Abdullah makes to his cabinet, you could go to bed one night with one set of ministers and wake up with an entirely different set of individuals. Such instablity is not good for any country and is fertile for unrest.
Last edited:
Well, it's strained but, amazingly (in a way), they are not entirely estranged. I doubt KA seeks P. Hassan's advice. If he has, he certainly has shown no signs of heeding it. Even if P. Hassan were willing to serve as a top advisor to KA (at this point, one would have to wonder what might be in it for P. Hassan and why he should trust KA), I think KA is too insecure to willingly put himself in the position of working so closely alongside someone who is so much more educated, experienced, facile in Arabic and other languages, and respected than him. P. Hassan is also a big reminder to everyone of KH. I think these images and reminders would only serve to heighten KA's insecurities and highlight to the consuming public the differences between these men. Unfortunately, KA appears to want to stand tall (figuratively speaking) so, to his way of thinking, he's got to stand next to pygmies to achieve that effect.Genevieve said:
I can never tell whether he's simply getting bad advice or whether he's getting sound counsel but not following it.
But it pays to remember, in the end, KA is an autocratic ruler in a country with high unemployment and few opportunities. So even a political genius would probably have to think twice before asserting him/herself strongly against KA.I think he's outwardly cocky, but inwardly terribly insecure. Excellent leaders--mental Einsteins or not--want to surround themselves with the best and the brightest, because they know that is one key to their success. Whatever his intellectual capacity, KA is not secure enough to surround himself with superstars.
True. There is no freedom of assembly in Jordan, so even just gathering (without saying anything) is a prosecutable offense. The people simply don't have a voice. . .this is what so many people forget when they look at KA and QR and buy the schtick they present to the West about democracy and freedom and liberalization in Jordan. I am happy to see more Western journalists dig a little deeper and come to the realization that Jordan is still run by an autocrat who, if anything, in recent times has tightened his hold on freedoms. I think it is incumbent upon the West to hold KA to a higher standard, to require full disclosure and transparency about how our funds are used in Jordan, and to require more substantive results (on the ground. . .for the little guy (and gal!)) before forking over another US$200 million in aid. Of course, the problem with this is that the West has dirty hands, too, so there are no angels in this story.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
Latest posts
-
-
Queen Mathilde's Daytime Fashion Part 12: December 2023 -- Latest: Frelinghighness
-
-
Jewels for sale: Worthy additions to royal collections, Part 2- Latest: duke of poliganc
