But Matt, look how pretty and ANGLICIZED she is! So systematic human rights violations are therefore OK.

Now, if she were to commit an unforgiveable offense, such as not matching her shoes with her handbag, well then...time to nuke Amman!

Excellent points, all.

I think what helps people like Rania is that Jordan has always been one of the few Arab nations fairly friendly with the US (unlike, say, Syria) and has not been perceived to be as repressive as, say, Saudi Arabia. If it were Queen Rania of Syria, or Queen Rania or Saudi Arabia, she wouldn't be perceived the same way, regardless of how well-spoken or well-dressed she is. And people still don't expect Arab states to transition to democracy in the way they think other states should.

Monarchy is democratic.

I think another reason that Jordan tends to get a pass is that their last queen was American-born and Ivy-educated. Americans love us some transplanted royalty, even as we officially reject the institution.

Seriously, I think you are under estimating the appeal of a HOT QUEEN.

Does the Jordanian parliament have the power of the purse? If so, it's not a dictatorship. Was King William IV a dictator? He had the right to appoint the prime minister and cabinet; to pack the House of Lords however he liked by creating new peers, and to dissolve parliament at will.

And yet, we don't generally consider early 19th century England to be a dictatorship. Obviously, it doesn't live up to current standards of democracy, but it's not really a dictatorship, either. Governmentally, at least, it sounds to be a constitutional monarchy in the 19th century sense - there's an elected legislature, but the executive is still controlled by an unelected monarch.

There really aren't too many other examples of this kind of system in the modern world. Other middle eastern monarchies - Morocco, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar seem to fit, but it's pretty much completely obsolete in the western world, although it was still fairly common as recently as the interwar period.

There's also the problem of the basic illiberality of Jordanian society, but it seems to me that this is really a separate issue, and cuts both ways in terms of Jordan's royal family. The illiberality means that the regime is relatively brutal and unpleasant compared to western standards. But it also means that a democratically-elected government would also be brutal and unpleasant by western standards. It would also be unfriendly to us (presumably it would be Islamist), and wouldn't have a glamorous monarchy.

Plus, Rania is really hot.

And, really, is there anywhere in the Arab world that's much better than "secular despotism that isn't that oppressive?" I suppose Lebanon's "sectarian pseudo-democracy" might qualify, but it seems like kind of a toss-up.

There are two countries in the entire world that still have a family name as the name of the nation: Saudi Arabia and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

A remarkably naive post. Haven't you learned anything at all from the failure of your grand plan to create a democracy in Iraq? Iraq used to have a King too. Strangely enough when they got rid of him they didn't end up with a functional democracy. What makes you think Jordan would be any different?

I agree with John, above, and would like to add that right now, we need all the allies we can get in the Middle East. Nobody's pretending here: Jordan really is our ally, and we need them.

Please, let us encourage Jordan to improve its human rights record and even encourage democratic reform. But it would be irresponsible for our leaders to give a cold shoulder to a strong ally in the Middle East, or for them to advocate for the sudden rise of a democracy without seriously considering the consequences.

Please, let us encourage Jordan to improve its human rights record and even encourage democratic reform. But it would be irresponsible for our leaders to give a cold shoulder to a strong ally in the Middle East, or for them to advocate for the sudden rise of a democracy without seriously considering the consequences.

This is the alternative to the Iraq war that might really have helped in the Middle East. After 9/11 we should have gone into Afghanistan, but instead of getting sidetracked by Saddam we should have completed the job by finding Osama and dumping some of those wasted dollars spent smashing Iraq on rebuilding that poor country. Then the next step would have been to turn our full attention to the Israel/Palestinian problem using all the extra cash we would have had to really drive those two parties to settle their dispute. Finally, with the left over billions still floating around, we could have worked on countries like Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon to gradually open up and democratize. Given the trillions spent on Iraq we would still have come out ahead and have a functioning Army and Marine Corps to help find terrorists.

Matt raises some very good points, but the problem exists only if you think that America is supposed to be promoting democracy in the world.

What we really want are regimes that are friendly. That's all.

"What we really want are regimes that are friendly. That's all."

Yes, how's that working out for you, anyway?

"What we really want are regimes that are friendly. That's all."

Yes, how's that working out for you, anyway?

Well, just because that's been the goal of American foreign policy for decades doesn't mean this current pack of clowns is any good at it. The Reagan-worshippers should have deserted this administration a long time ago; when President Reagan supported death squads or repressive Middle Eastern regimes, he at least did it well.

And John, King William IV might have technically retained the power to dissolve Parliament at will, but in practice would never have been able to do so. Only if a government could not be formed could the monarch call for new elections. Nor could King William do this: "King ABDALLAH delayed the 2001 elections until 2003." King Abdallah also has frequently governed by decree rather than through Parliament. He has also unilaterally announced a plan to devolve decision-making and spending upon regional governments, again bypassing the parliament. Think of it as federalism, only with the states' budgets provided by a President-for-life. So remember: it's not a constitutional monarchy when the monarch can ignore the rest of the government at will. Hmm, there might be a cautionary tale for the US in that.

Frango Regna

mds, yeah, because we have an "imperial" President, right? A monarch, right? Sheesh!

mds, yeah, because we have an "imperial" President, right? A monarch, right? Sheesh!

Well, my attempted refutation of parallels between Jordan and 19th century British constitutional monarchy itself stands refuted. I bow to your superior erudition.

First of all thank you for your interest in Jordan and its wellbeing.

Secondly with respect to all of you above Jordan is not a dictatorship, we may not be as the UK or USD in our governing system, but one thing I’m sure of is that we are not a dictatorship. Yes certain powers reside with the king, but that does not mean that the parliament is with no powers. No law can pass without the approval of the parliament, even laws that were passed when the parliament was out of session the parliament can revoke or change such laws, so the comment that the king bypass everyone at well is a fouls accusation.

And frankly in many cases his majesty and members of the royal family are more progressive than the parliament, such case was the demand to change laws regarding domestic violence, some members of the royal family even participated in protests demanding change, the queen used her leverage to push forward a new law, but at the end the parliament was the one who revoked it.

And I only want to remind all of you of the time that the US and Europe took to reach this point, and the hardships that you passed to reach the point where you are now. What I’m saying is that we need time to realize that, we need time to grow as a nation (Jordan is only 60 years old), we need time to find our way, we need time to define what we want, and we are going through this process, there is a continues debate regarding the election and Political parties laws, political parties are seeking for the government to be formed based on majorities in the parliament, the king him self welcomed the idea. The king proposed a plan to divide Jordan into regions with elected counsels for each region to decentralize decision making. All of these points are sings of a healthy nation that’s finding its way.

We have our work cut for us, and we know it.

All I’m saying is that we need time, change need time

But Matt, look how pretty and ANGLICIZED she is! So systematic human rights violations are therefore OK. I disagree go to http://www.apartments.waw.pl/

kkcahng5rtlcpbed kkcahng5rtlcpbed kkcahng5rtlcpbed kkcahng5rtlcpbed kkcahng5rtlcpbed3

vqkztgse520ef2 paxil online cheap paxil vqkztgse520ef2c

btjxr5byph5dgjg generic fioricet cheap fioricet btjxr5byph5dgjgu

wkeoiup31gne5w activaamedida activaamedida wkeoiup31gne5wl

ryffnazcc7vobtpt passaggio passaggio ryffnazcc7vobtpt3

feevb4uo659qdtw out of reach out feevb4uo659qdtwu

feevb4uo659qdtw out of reach out feevb4uo659qdtwu

eaq4c14nakhw87 mean mean eaq4c14nakhw87i

asueubzr9dg1 passaggio a nord-ovest passaggio asueubzr9dg1z

asueubzr9dg1 passaggio a nord-ovest passaggio asueubzr9dg1z

vemmqamyp43z alex alex vemmqamyp43zm

xbb7aehfsudey order paxil paxil online xbb7aehfsudeyv

jog98l214khcd alprazolam online cheap alprazolam jog98l214khcdq