The Middle East is known for its anti-western attitudes. Despite that, many Arab governments pursue pro-western policy. One of the countries that cooperates with Europe and the USA is Jordan. The specific political stance of the Hashemite monarchy has, however, strong historical reasons and results from untypical conditions of this state. One should mention that the very formation of Jordan resulted from the cooperation of British authorities with the Hashemite. The state was formed in 1921, at first under the name of Transjordan, in result of political decisions of London. In 1921–1956 Amman cooperated with Great Britain. The fact that in 1946 Jordan gained independence did not change a lot. The country of the Hashemite remained dependant on the British. The symbol of this unequal cooperation was the person of John Bagot Glubb. This British offi cer became the commander of the Jordan army. The Arabs considered him as a representative of the empire, but he himself was convinced that he was serving the Arab interests. Despite the fact that the development of Jordan depended on donations of London, the authorities in Amman maintained freedom of decision making. In 1956 king Hussein removed J.B. Glubb from the country and broke the alliance with the Great Britain. The Hashemite dynasty rejected the relations with London so as to win over the Arab nationalists. At the same time king Hussein I established a strict but informal alliance with the USA. It was Washington that started to donate the state treasury and its armed forces. This cooperation has continued until today. Simultaneously, Amman was able at moments to oppose the policy of the USA. It happened in 1967 and in 1990–1991 during the first conflict of the USA with Iraq, when Amman supported Baghdad. Generally speaking, however, the Jordan regime maintained its prowestern option. The Hashemite government strives first and foremost to maintain stability of the monarchy system. Cooperation with the USA, and previously with the British did not result, however, from ideological reasons, but serving the basic aim. At the same time, in case of the Hashemite, cooperation with Anglo-Saxons has long tradition and serves well their political assumptions.
PL
Region Bliskiego Wschodu jest znany z antyzachodnich nastrojów. Mimo to wiele rządów arabskich prowadzi prozachodnią politykę. Jednym z państw współpracujących z Europą i USA jest Jordania. Taka opcja polityczna monarchii haszymidzkiej ma jednak głębokie przyczyny historyczne i wynika z nietypowych uwarunkowań tego państwa. Należy przypomnieć, że samo powstanie Jordanii wynikało ze współpracy władz brytyjskich z Haszymidami. Państwo to utworzono w 1921 r. początkowo pod nazwą Transjordania, w wyniku decyzji politycznych Londynu. Od tego czasu do 1956 r. trwała współpraca Ammanu z Wielką Brytanią. Fakt, że w 1946 r. Jordania uzyskała niepodległość niewiele zmienił – państwo Haszymidów pozostawało zależne od Brytyjczyków. Symbolem tej nierównorzędnej współpracy była osoba Johna Bagota Glubba. Ten brytyjski ofi cer stał się głównodowodzącym armii jordańskiej. Arabowie uważali go za przedstawiciela imperium, on sam jednak był przekonany, że służy interesom arabskim. Mimo, że rozwój Jordanii zależał od dotacji Londynu, władze w Ammanie zachowały swobodę decyzji. W 1956 r. król Husajn I usunął z kraju J.B. Glubba i zerwał sojusz z Wielką Brytanią. Dynastia haszymidzka odrzuciła związek z Londynem, by pozyskać nacjonalistów arabskich. Jednocześnie król Husajn I nawiązał ścisły, choć nieformalny, sojusz z USA. To Waszyngton zaczął dotować skarb Jordanii i jego siły zbrojne. Współpraca ta trwa do dziś. Jednocześnie Amman potrafi ł w pewnych momentach przeciwstawić się polityce USA. Tak było w 1967 r. i w latach 1990–1991 w czasie pierwszego konfliktu USA z Irakiem, podczas którego Amman popierał Bagdad. Generalnie jednak reżim jordański utrzymywał opcję prozachodnią. Rząd haszymidzki dąży przede wszystkim do utrzymania stabilności ustroju monarchicznego. Współpraca z USA, a wcześniej z Brytyjczykami, nie wynika z założeń ideowych, lecz służy temu podstawowemu celowi. Jednocześnie współpraca z Anglosasami ma w przypadku Haszymidów długą tradycję i dobrze służy ich założeniom politycznym.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, unexpectedly, maintained political stability after 2011. It is a phenomenon in the region where many countries plunged into in perennial civil wars. Moreover, Jordan has maintained this stability despite relatively, according to the regional criteria, liberal internal policy. The following text is devoted to the analysis of this phenomenon and, at the same time, it discusses main events concerning the Kingdom in the years 2011–2018. Basic features of the political and social system of Jordan have been analysed and, inevitably, previous history of the country has also been outlined. Strong aspects of Jordan monarchy that enable to overcome crises, better than in the neighbouring countries, have been pointed out. At the same time, problems and threats that could threaten the stability of this country in the future, have also been indicated.
PL
Haszymidzkie Królestwo Jordanii niespodziewanie dla wielu obserwatorów utrzymało pełną stabilność polityczną po 2011 r. Stanowi to ewenement w regionie, w którym wiele państw pogrążyło się w wieloletniej wojnie domowej. Co więcej Jordania zachowuje tę stabilność pomimo prowadzenia dość liberalnej polityki wewnętrznej, przynajmniej według kryteriów regionu. Tekst poniższy poświęcony jest analizie tego fenomenu i jednocześnie przedstawia główne wydarzenia dotyczące Królestwa w latach 2011–2018. Zanalizowano podstawowe cechy systemu politycznego i społecznego Jordanii i z konieczności przedstawiono też zarys wcześniejszej historii państwa. Wskazano silne strony monarchii jordańskiej, które pozwalają jej lepiej niż sąsiadom przezwyciężyć kryzysy. Jednocześnie wskazano problemy i zjawiska, które mogą w przyszłości zagrozić stabilizacji tego państwa.
Monarchy and the Crisis of State Governance in the Arab World Serious political crises observed in the Arab world since 2011 have resulted in the overthrow of or attacks on several dictatorships, but it is interesting to note that deep crises of state structures were observed in the Arab republics, while the monarchies retained political and social stability. The author observes that this is hardly a coincidence, as the monarchs rely on the traditional legitimacy of power, with the reigning dynasties depending either on their descent from Prophet Muhammad or on their contribution to the renewal of Islam. The authority of these monarchs is close to absolute, even in Jordan, where many European arrangements have been adopted (for example, a constitution, parliament, and elections). This text examines several decades in Jordan’s development, focusing on the crises of authority in 1951, 1956–1957, 1967–1970 and 1989–1991. In times of crisis, the Hashemites draw on their prerogatives as absolute rulers, and on the concept of the ruler in Islamic tradition, so Jordan’s history may be presented as an example of the stabilising role of monarchies in the Arab world.
The following text discusses the first attempt to transform the authoritarian Jordan monarchy into a constitutional monarchy, in which the parliament chosen by the people was supposed, apart from the king, to serve the role of a real supervisor of the state. Such an attempt was made in 1951-1957. It ended up in a failure and, in fact, the return of the authoritarian methods of exercising the power. This failure resulted both from the specific circumstances of the contemporary Middle East, as well as certain permanent features of Arabic societies. Thus, it is important to trace back these events to show both the attempt at reforms, as well as the causes of the failure. The following text makes use first and foremost of English language resources concerning the history of Jordan. Also, the archive documents collected in the National Archives were used, especially the ones that refer to the correspondence between the authorities in London and the British embassy in Amman. To understand the issue, it will be necessary to go back beyond the year 1951 and to present in brief the very process of how the Hashemite monarchy came into existence.
PL
W tekście poniższym przedstawiona zostanie pierwsza próba przekształcenia autorytarnej monarchii jordańskiej w monarchię konstytucyjną, w której wybrany przez naród parlament miał pełnić obok króla rolę realnego zwierzchnika państwa. Próbę taką podjęto w latach 1951-1957. Zakończyła się ona niepowodzeniem i powrotem do de facto autorytarnych metod sprawowania władzy. Niepowodzenie to wynikało zarówno ze specyficznych warunków ówczesnego Bliskiego Wschodu jak i z pewnych stałych cech społeczeństw arabskich. Warto więc prześledzić te wydarzenia by ukazać zarówno tą próbę reform, jak i przyczyny jej porażki. W tekście poniższym wykorzystane zostały przede wszystkim opracowania angielskojęzyczne dotyczące historii Jordanii. Wykorzystano również dokumenty archiwalne zgromadzone w National Archives szczególnie te wynikające z korespondencji między władzami w Londynie a ambasadą brytyjską w Ammanie. Aby zrozumieć temat konieczne będzie cofnięcie się poza rok 1951 i przedstawienie skrótowo samego procesu powstawania instytucji haszymidzkiej monarchii.
John Bagot Glubb is an almost unknown person to Polish readers. He was the commanding general of the Jordanian Army in the 1940s and 50s. J.B. Glubb played a very important role in the politics of the Middle East. The article is based on British political correspondence and monographs which describe the relationship between Great Britain and Jordan. The article presents the career of J.B. Glubb and his powerful position in the Jordan government between 1946–1956. His unique position was a symbol of the political power which the British government had in this region at that time. J.B. Glubb was suddenly deposed from the Jordan government on 1–2 March 1956. The main aim of the article is to emphasize why his demission was such a political sensation in 1956. That deposal was connected with a decline of British power in this region. The government in London previously had a great influence on Middle Eastern politics and they directed national politics from behind the scenes. J.B. Glubb was at the same time a faithful subject of the Jordanian monarchy and the ideal person to lead informal policy in the behalf of the British government.
The current international situation is characterised by increasing political unrests in the area of the Arab world. In many Middle-Eastern countries there occurred collapse of state structures and many-year civil wars broke out. Political chaos in the Arab world has been increasing for over a dozen years and it seems to be rather a result of structural flaws inherent in the political systems of countries in this region, rather than accidental events. These facts provoke to an attempt at deeper analysis of the circumstances and search for some general features. One of the immediately noticeable features of the situa-tion is that political anarchization concerns Arab republics, whereas monarchies are distinguished by significantly greater internal stability. The reasons for the downfall of republics are internal problems as well as conflicts with western powers. Also in this case one may notice political rowdiness of the republican leaders in Egypt, Iraq and Libya and compare it with more stable and responsible politics of monarchies. Generally pre-modern monarchial legalism in the Arab world turns out to be a more effective political idea than the rule of sovereignty of nations. This is a noteworthy fact, although it is contradictory to western political dogmas.
W latach 1946–1948 doszło do konfliktu między społecznością arabską i żydowską w Palestynie. Starcie to zakończyło się zwycięstwem strony żydowskiej i utworzeniem Państwa Izrael. Ważną rolę w tych wydarzeniach odgrywały władze brytyjskie. To decyzje Londynu rozstrzygały o losach Palestyny aż do połowy maja 1948 r. Dlatego warto poznać poglądy elity brytyjskiej na temat społeczności żydowskiej i arabskiej. Szczególnie uważnie należałoby prześledzić jej opinie dotyczące siły politycznej obu przeciwników. Na podstawie dokumentów brytyjskich, zwłaszcza raportów dowódcy armii transjordańskiej J.B. Glubba, można tę sprawę częściowo wyjaśnić. Należy stwierdzić, że elity imperium liczyły się wprawdzie z siłą polityczną społeczności żydowskiej, ale zdecydowanie nie doceniały jej możliwości militarnych. Jednocześnie w Londynie przeceniano wojskowe umiejętności Arabów. Zupełnie też nie rozumiano motywów ruchu syjonistycznego i poziomu jego determinacji. Ten stan świadomości przyczynił się do wytworzenia wśród wojskowych i cywilnych elit brytyjskich anachronicznego obrazu obu stron sporu. To zaś prawdopodobnie ułatwiło Londynowi podjęcie fatalnej decyzji o wycofaniu się z Palestyny w maju 1948 r. Było to równoznaczne ze zgodą na wojnę w tej krainie. Wiele poszlak wskazuje, że Brytyjczycy liczyli na możliwość powrotu swych sił jako oddziałów ratujących słabszą grupę żydowską. Tymczasem wynik starcia zadał decydujący cios brytyjskiemu systemowi dominacji w regionie.
EN
In the years 1946–1948 a conflict between the Arab and the Jewish communities took place in Palestine. The struggle ended in the victory of the Jewish side and formation of the State of Israel. In the period in questions the British authorities played an important role in these events. It was the decisions of London that determined, until May 1948, the situation in Palestine. Therefore, it is worth petting to know the opinions of British elites on the subject of Jewish and Arab communities. In particular, its opinions on the topic of the political power of the two enemies should be recognised. This issue can be partially explained on the basis of British documents and, in particular, on the basis of reports of the commander of the Transjordan Army, J. B. Glubb. It needs to be stated that the Empire elites did in fact recognise political strength of the Jewish community, but they did not recognise its military potential. Simultaneously, London overrated the military potential of Arabs. The motives of the Zionist movement and the level of its determination were not understood at all. Such a state of awareness contributed to the creation, among the British military and civil elites, of an anachronistic image of both sides of the conflict. Probably in consequence this helped London to make the disastrous decision to withdraw from Palestine in May 1948. This was tantamount to consent for war in this region. Numerous traces of evidence indicate that the British hoped for the possibility of the return of their forces as troops rescuing the weaker Jewish side, however the result of the conflict dealt a decisive blow to British dominance in the region.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is now one of the most stable Arab countries. Several times in its history, however, it underwent area period of serious internal con-flicts. Jordan is a monarchy and the authority of the house of Hashemite comprises an axiom of its constitution. In 1957 and 1970 strong opposition dominated by the Palestini-ans posed a threat to the rule of the Hashemites. In 1991 the throne was not directly in danger, but the results of the Gulf War were destabilizing within the country. The article presents those three political crises and the way in which king Hussein defeated the opposition forces. The Hashemite made use of main internal divisions in Jordanian socie-ty, especially the antagonism between Palestinians and the citizens of Transjordan. This strategy has, until now, been effective.
The term „fundamentalism” has become very fashionable in Europe and the USA recently. The press in the West links this term to Islam, which being methodologically erroroneous, has, nonetheless, as a slogan gained universal currency. The Author sheds light on one of the major fundamentalist groupings active predominantly in the Middle East, that is Muslim Brotherhood. This enables him to present the phenomenon of islamic fundamentalism in a broader context. The Muslim Brotherhood is a fundamentalist organization founded in 1928 by an Egyptian Hasan Al Ban. The Brotherhood has aimed both in the past and in the present at creating a society based on the Qurran principles as well as at rebuilding the Muslim unity, i.e. the califate. Currently, the organization acts in the whole world of Islam. It includes both extremist, even terrorist, and pacifist wings. The activities of the movement are discussed by the Author using an example of two countries – Egypt and Jordan. In Egypt the Brotherhood is often forced to act undercover, in conspiration, while in Jordan it has always been a legally recognised association. Using these examples it might be shown that organisations of this type act either in legally permissible or unlawful manners depending on the contextual conditions and the type of political regime framing their functioning. This conclusion is especially important if an attempt is made by an European observer to cast a value judgement on the Brotherhood. The organization of Muslim Brothers in Jordan has taken part in general elections since 1989, competing with political parties which have different political programmes within a pluralist electoral system. Whereas in Egypt the Brotherhood must take into account presidential authoritarian power, in Jordan it faces a challenge constituted by modern parliametarian system and fragmented public opinion. These differences are emphasized in the paper.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.