Photo: A meeting of the southern Shaykhs, March 2006
February 10, 2011 - The short note on page A11 (“Jordanian tribes criticize the queen”, Globe and Mail, February 10, 2011) understated the significance of the tribes’ criticism of Queen Rania. It was not just the breaking of a taboo, but signaled a shift in geopolitics that could have much wider implications. At its heart, the joint statement, allegedly by the sheikhs of 36 tribes, was not about the Queen per se, but about land and power. His Majesty King Abdullah II was quick to angrily deny the accusations, to point out that the authors of the “joint statement” were not tribal leaders, just members of the 36 tribes, and to threaten the reporter with legal action. Nevertheless, the fact that such a statement could be written and published signals some kind of change, or at least the threat of it.
Since the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan shares dynastic ties with Iraq’s tribes (the former King Faisal was also a Hashemite), this issue extends far beyond Jordan’s borders. How far was shown during the first Gulf War. When Saddam Hussein’s army attacked Kuwait, Kuwaiti pastoralists had to flee with their livestock, but where? They could not legally cross into Saudi Arabia or Iraq, and Saddam had made it mandatory on pain of death for all adult males of Kuwait to join the Iraq army. But Kuwaiti Bedouins had tribal connection in Jordan, and the Iraq and Saudi tribes gave them safe passage as they walked across the 1000 km of desert. Although it was also illegal for them to enter Jordan, in 1990-1991 about 6000 Kuwaiti families brought 1.4 million sheep, goats and camels across the border. They followed ancient camel routes and watered at oases known only to the Bedouins, travelled at night, and hid in wadis during the day. When they arrived in Jordan, the local tribes, who were already squabbling among themselves over grazing rights, made room for the newcomers and their flocks.
Jordan is the eye in the storm of the Middle East. Like Canada, Jordan is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government; the main difference is that in Jordan, the King can prorogue Parliament, while in Canada the Prime Minister has that power. Jordan is the closest Arab country to a democracy, the most open socially, the most peaceful, the most religiously pluralistic, and the most lawful. Jordan and Egypt are the only Arab states formally at peace with Israel. Too often, news about the Middle East that mentions “tribes” contains “lawless” in the same sentence. It’s true in Jordan that tribal law is strong and exists alongside government law, but that does not make it lawless. Tribal leaders in Jordan are struggling to adapt their laws and customs to the 21st century. The nomadic lifestyle is disappearing, leaving an economic and social vacuum.
Jordan and the other Arab states are governed by two parallel systems: constitutional laws and tribal laws and customs. These two systems come together in the person of King Abdullah II. All the tribes owe allegiance to the King, who in turn ensures the tribes’ financial and political security. But this is a two-edged sword: The tribes are more cognizant of their ancestral territories than modern country borders and often take their flocks into Syria, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia in search of pasture. Although illegal without export/import permits and fees, the authorities condone it. If the tribes’ loyalty to the King were to be somehow sundered, there would be nothing keeping them from offering their loyalty to other emirs.
Bedouin society is organized in a traditional family-clan-tribal hierarchy. Each evening, the clan chiefs get together with the sheikh and decide the affairs of the tribe. One of the routine decisions is: Which bright young men and women will be sent to Amman for education? The tribal elders know that they need representatives among the business leaders and politicians of the country. in 2002, I was out on the trackless desert, meeting with Bedouin elders wearing their flowing robes and headdresses in a tent that appeared to reek of poverty, when the chief’s son arrived in a brand new SUV. Individual families might not have money, but the tribe has money.
Much of their cash flow comes from the well-armed Badia (“Desert”) Force, whose members, recruited from the Bedouin tribes since the country was created, patrol the kingdom’s borders on camels. As well, many or most members of the army are Bedouin. Therefore, the tribes are linked to power not only through tribal loyalties, but through the military.
The Bedouin traditions are strong and their culture persists. They comprise about 40% of the country’s population. Outside of the cities, about 98% of the people identify themselves as “Bedu,” (French Bedouin: “people of the desert”) and identify with one of the 40 or so Jordanian tribes. Almost all have at least a few sheep or goats, while those better off still count their wealth in camels. More than 60% are semi-nomadic, spending at least a season away from their homes in search of pasture, and 5%–10% are fully nomadic, with no permanent homes. They have a deep attachment to the land and all whom I talked to in four years of working with them professed to love the lifestyle.
The tribes’ joint statement is itself historic. They live in villages mostly deserted in summer as they wander with their flocks in search of grass across vast stretches of desert, and some of the tribes are traditional enemies. In 2006, to plan a country-wide rangeland restoration project, I helped organize two meetings, one with the sheikhs of all the northern tribes of Jordan, and one with all the southern sheikhs. During the meetings, the enmity between certain of the sheikhs was palpable. My boss, a member of the Higher Council for Science and Technology, commented, during the obligate feast that followed, “this is a historic meeting, you know. Some of these sheikhs have never met each other and never have they all met together.”
The joint statement came at a moment when the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia had fallen and there were demonstrations in half a dozen other Arab and North African countries. To forestall foment in Jordan, the King had already announced constitutional and other reforms, and soon after he charged Parliament with implementing them.
Their beef with Queen Rania—whose family is from Palestine—is more about her humanitarian support for Palestinians in Jordan than with her alleged lavish lifestyle. One of the ways that the King has sought tribes’ loyalty is apportioning seats in Parliament partly by land, rather than by population, with the result that the tribes’ representatives currently control parliament. This gives them not only the usual perks and power of politicians, but more important to them, the power to regulate affairs critical to their communities, such as land and water rights. But between 2005 and 2010 the Queen's office has helped many Palestinians obtain Jordanian citizenship (the Joint Statement gave a number that the subsequent Royal statement said was wrong); as well (or as a result), Palestinian businessmen are gaining an increasing share of the economy. Jordanian tribes feel threatened, not only by the Palestinians, but since 2003 by the huge influx of Iraqi refugees and other immigrants. If the tribes were to lose faith with the Jordanian monarch, the political consequences in the Middle East would be enormous.
No comments:
Post a Comment