 |
|||
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Photo credit: Flickr user Homer-Dog
In a first for the country, Jordan convicted three former government officials on charges of corruption on July 6. The group includes a former finance minister, a senior advisor to the prime minister, and a former head executive of the state’s oil refinery, all of whom were sentenced to three years in jail after being found guilty of taking bribes from a prominent Jordanian businessman. These convictions have the potential to be a promising step forward in the country’s ongoing anticorruption efforts; however, a number of concerns must be addressed before these developments can be taken as a solid advance against corruption.
Jordan ranked #49 out of a possible 180 in Transparency International’s 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index, and levels of corruption there rank favorably to those of the country’s regional peers, but corruption remains a serious impediment to transparent political and economic development in the country. Freedom House’s 2010 Countries at the Crossroads report indicated that the environment to protect against corruption, procedures and systems to enforce anticorruption laws, and the existence of anticorruption norms, standards, and protections were all lacking, resulting in a poor anticorruption and transparency score of 2.48 out of a possible 7.
It is clear that Jordanians are deeply concerned about the impact of corruption on political development. A 2008 poll conducted by Amman’s Center for Strategic Studies, for example, shed light on the perceived impact of corruption. Asked what the most prominent obstacle was to democracy in Jordan, 17.4% of respondents chose “the spread of financial and administrative corruption, favoritism and nepotism.”The Crossroads report details one particularly troubling element, the existence of extensive and entrenched patronage networks that distribute jobs, land, lucrative contracts, subsidies and other benefits. Jordan’s monarchy has consistently used these networks to reward allies and supporters and to withhold valuable resources and access from its detractors. Patronage networks organized along political lines are not problematic simply because they are inequitable, but are also harmful because they essentially create an informal social support system that marginalizes those that do not support the government. This has the dual effect of unduly handicapping a large proportion of the population in their access to jobs and other resources, while simultaneously eroding the government’s capacity to effectively deliver public goods to its citizenry.
The government seems to have recognized these concerns and has taken some modest steps toward reform. The king has vowed to cut corruption dramatically and created an Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) in 2006. Though the group has examined over 1,000 allegations of corruption, it is hardly independent, as the King himself appoints the commission’s six members. Jordan signed the United Nations Convention Against Corruption in 2005 and in 2006 hosted the conference of state parties to that convention. Soon after signing the convention, a number of reforms intended to increase transparency and accountability were enacted; however, continued implementation of these measures has been weak. The trial of public officials for corruption is especially rare, and the recent convictions could potentially represent an initial step toward fuller implementation of anticorruption measures.
Multiple issues call into question the true depth of Jordan’s anticorruption efforts, however, including the recent convictions. Chief among critics’ concerns about the recent convictions is that the trial took place in a special security court, as opposed to a civil court. The special status of this case could suggest that the government considers it exceptional and does not intend to make a habit of trying high-level officials. Comprehensive anticorruption reform cannot be ad hoc, but rather requires the development of a transparent and independent anticorruption system with institutionalized laws and procedures. It is troubling that the government missed an opportunity to strengthen the organizations and procedures already in place by failing to apply them in the recent case. The head of Transparency International’s Jordan chapter, Mamdouh Abbadi, seems to share this sentiment, explaining, “We do not want the government to be choosy in tackling corruption, but rather we want to see a continuing process. We would like more cases referred to the court of cassation and not a military court, which is a special court.”
The fact that journalists were barred from the court also raised concerns. Analysis of the case has been limited within the Kingdom, and the function of Jordanian media outlets in anticorruption efforts is unclear. Media actors tend to report on cases only after they have reached courts, as opposed to acting as watchdogs for corruption as it occurs. Jordanian media laws play a role in this failure, as the criticism of a court ruling is a felony offense that carries the possibility of jail time. Not surprisingly, comprehensive in-country news analysis of corruption proceedings is rare.
Despite these and other weighty concerns, the recent convictions are promising and can hopefully be taken as a signal of more reform to come. But as experiences with high-profile convictions in many other countries indicate, unless the government seizes momentum and continues to enact and implement reforms, the impact of the convictions will remain limited.
