Muslim brotherhood and the Jordanian state: Containment or fragmentation bets (1999–2018)?

• Published in: Asian journal of comparative politics 2021-03, Vol.6 (1), p.62-80
• Main Author: Salameh, Mohammed Torki Bani
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 2057-8911; 2057-892X
• DOI: 10.1177/2057891119891035

The Jordanian state was established on both secular and religious conservative principles. The approval of the establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan was on 19 November 1945, and it was consistent with these principles. Until 1989, the relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and the regime varied between mutual symbiotic relations, based on mutual support between the parties, and hostile and meta-interactions. In 1989, the process towards democratization came as a testing phase for the ability of the Jordanian political system to coexist with the manifestations of political pluralism, especially with the Muslim Brotherhood, their containment and diminishing influence. The Jordanian political system preferred to limit the strength of the Muslim Brotherhood and to retreat from democratic transformation, while keeping the channels of communication effective between the system and the Muslim Brotherhood. When King Abdullah II came to power in 1999, the relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Jordanian political system went through three main stages. During the stage of the transition from political to security side (1999–2003), the political file of the Muslim Brotherhood was delivered to the General Intelligence Department, which tried to limit the strength of the group and restrict their activities. In the second phase (2004–2008), a cold confrontation between the two parties took place, and the parliamentary and municipal elections were rigged to prevent their access to parliament, which ended in mistrust between the parties. In the third phase (2009–2018), the Muslim Brotherhood used the boycott policy to deal with the royal initiatives and election entitlements. The regime used the policy of fragmentation from inside the group, encouraging divisions within the group instead of directly confronting or banning it.