On eve of protest, King Abdullah dissolves parliament

[Judi Lynn]

Source: CNN

On eve of protest, King Abdullah dissolves parliament
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 3:52 PM EDT, Thu October 4, 2012

(CNN) -- On the eve of a protest expected in Amman Friday, Jordan's king has dissolved the country's parliament and called for early elections close to the new year.

This isn't the first time King Abdullah II has responded pre-emptively to a possible Arab Spring-inspired demonstration in the country. But it could foreshadow the seriousness of the rally, which is likely to echo the push for democratic reforms that have swept North Africa and the Middle East.

Popular uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya ousted longtime leaders from power.

In nearly two years, King Abdullah has fired four prime ministers.

In February 2011, shortly before Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak stepped down following weeks of intense protest, Abdullah dismissed his government and appointed a new prime minister. The king ordered Marouf al-Bakhit to make "genuine political reform," the country's royal court reported.


Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/world/meast/jordan-king-dismisses-government/index.html

[Cleita]

1. What's the point of a constitutional monarchy if the king still

behaves like a medieval war lord?

[Posteritatis]

3. Parliamentary dissolution is a normal part of all constitutional monarchies. (nt)

[Lars77]

5. Presidents can do it in some republics too. It's not always a bad thing.

[Posteritatis]

6. Yep. It's one of the key differences between parliamentary and presidential systems.

This isn't some Star Wars-esque "I have dealt with the Senate" arrangement, it just means the time is now general election o'clock. It kind of annoys me how every single time one country or another dissolves their parliament we get people on here speaking like it is.

[kelliekat44]

34. Be nice if Pres. Obama could dissolve Congress.

Just a thought.

[Cleita]

8. Then there is no point to calling it a democracy of any sort if that's

the reason for a constitution. As much as I would like Obama to dissolve Congress at times and call for a new election, it wouldn't be very Democratic IMHO.

[Lars77]

9. Is it democratic when a british PM calls election right after a won war?

Like Tatcher after defeating the Falklands.

Edit: What i meant to say rather is that when they do it is still a democratic process. Power is just slightly shifted towards the executive branch

[Posteritatis]

12. Or the legislative branch, depending on the particular country.

The American congress can't easily take down a president, but a lot of parliamentary legislatures can and often do bring down a prime minister, or even government, that screws the pooch badly enough.

[Posteritatis]

11. Ahh, yes, "American democracy is the only kind anywhere in the world."

Read a basic government textbook, preferably one that recognizes there's more than one country in the world, and come back when you can discuss this without making a fool of yourself.

[Lars77]

13. Bit harsh.

[Posteritatis]

15. Enh, provincial exceptionalism's common enough here that I lost patience with it awhile ago. (nt)

[Cleita]

21. The only provincialism being displayed here is yours. n/t

[DeSwiss]

24. +1000

[SemperEadem]

32. but seriously

broaden your scope.

[Posteritatis]

37. LOL, right. (nt)

[tama]

17. Switzerland is democracy

Founding fathers detested democracy aka "mob rule". The main purpose of parliamentary, federal republic etc. representative systems has always been protection of the privileges of capitalistic ownership. Peaceful revolutions and new constitutions in countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Iceland etc. have taken major steps towards direct and participative democracy.

[Cleita]

20. Actually, I was thinking of real democracy, which doesn't exist, particularly here in America.

However, I was under the impression that constitutional monarchies were founded on the idea of handing some sort of democracy to the kings subjects or some kind of self-rule no matter how limited. Elections are one of these democratic institutions. But if the king has the kind of power that can overturn elected officials then the people have no power, really, except at his discretion. Then logic would indicate that there is no real constitutional guarantee of some democracy or rule by the people. So again, what's the point?

About the making a fool of myself thing. Smarter DUers have tried that kind of insult when other DUers question a principle or government or just disagree. It's really a cheap shot and you wouldn't want people to think you have so little to offer in the way of discussion that all you can do is be insulting.

[ButterflyBlood]

26. Under a parliamentary system, there are no set election dates

Elections simply happen upon dissolution of parliament, which is required to happen during a certain time period (for example the UK and Canada require this and thus new elections at least once every five years, Australia requires it every three years.) However it can happen earlier if the parliament is dissolved. Often this happens because the parliament is no longer capable of governing, for example early elections in the Netherlands and Italy were called recently because the governing coalition contained a party that no longer supported it and wanted to withdraw. In such cases though where the government no longer has the support in parliament the new elections must be called by the head of state, this is either the constitutional monarch, Governor General (in Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia) or figurehead President (like in Italy and Germany.)

[Cleita]

29. So shouldn't somebody other than the King be doing this?

I mean, it may be legal but......

[ButterflyBlood]

30. It's always the Head of State who does it, who's usually a figurehead.

The Queen does it when the UK has elections too. Even in a country like Austria, Israel or Italy where the President does it, the President is just a figurehead who has little if any real power, just like a constitutional monarch. So if Obama could dissolve Congress, he wouldn't be very powerful and would have mostly just ceremonial duties.

[joshcryer]

16. He can only do that with a divided congress, which we had in 2010.

I think he would've been awesome if he did that but it wouldn't have done much for his reelection bid since American's want Presidents that can reach across the isle.

[Cleita]

19. I wouldn't have wanted it in reality because sometimes I feel if we

made the mistake of voting in a Congress that isn't doing the work of the people, we need to wait until the next election to correct our mistake. Otherwise, it leans too closely to coups of the third world country type if we don't follow the rules if you know what I mean.

[joshcryer]

25. Well, they are part of the rules, the rule is if the two congresses can't decide...

...to recess, the President gets to decide.

So had the Senate moved to recess and the House said no, he could've recessed the Congress.

My fantasy scenario is that the President would've passed some crazy partisan New Deal-style legislation with single payer and stuff like that, and then when the House was lost had a Senator to call for recess, and then dissolved the Congress. It would've been pretty crazy as that power has never been used by any President since the founding of the country.

[Cleita]

28. I could have shared your fantasy except the reality is that if

it were that easy to get all the single payer stuff etc., it would be just as easy to upend it in the next session. I guess my problem comes from a deeper place. My mother was Chilean and she always bragged that Chile had a democracy in South America at a time when most were run by corrupt dictatorships. When Allende, a socialist was elected President, she was not happy, because she was a conservative. However, she said that it didn't matter, because he would be elected out in the next race when everyone who voted for him would have realized their mistake. In the meantime we had to honor the will of the people because elections were so important in a democracy. She was shocked when the coup was staged and Pinochet became dictator and the Chilean democracy was pretty much wiped away in one fell swoop. So I have always had a fondness for elections to change our leaders the next time and the necessity of honoring the will of the people in an election until that next time there was another ELECTION and the will of the people was displayed once more.

[joshcryer]

35. The thing is anyone with sense would've known the House would be obstructionist...

...once the teabaggers took over. And that's exactly what happened.

So it wouldn't have been a loss putting the Congress into recess.

It would've definitely been an unprecedented power move though so of course I realize that it was a fantasy scenario.

I agree with the sentiments about Democracy, though, but I think from a constitutionalist point of view it would've still been democratic. It's more important to follow the constitution that the people make above all.

[ButterflyBlood]

23. So do you not consider Canada a democracy?

The same power to dissolve parliament exists there. As well as Australia, New Zealand, India and basically every EU country except France.

[Cleita]

27. I have never known the Queen to dissolve parliament in Canada, Australia, New Zealand

or India. I think that is the difference.

[ButterflyBlood]

31. In the first three countries it's done by the Governor General, a representative of the Queen

And the Queen does do it in the UK. The monarch is also responsible in Spain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. India has a President, but he's a figurehead without much power and duties comparable to a constitutional monarch.

[SemperEadem]

33. she has the power to do so in the UK

She is the head of the Commonwealth which includes all of those countries. That she doesn't interfere in their parliaments has nothing to do with how those countries choose to govern.

[JackRiddler]

36. Yeah, and clubbing someone over the head...

is a normal part of repressive states. So?

What's your point?

[Lars77]

4. What has he done to give you that impression?

[Alamuti Lotus]

7. because keeping up appearances is an important part of public relations scams? *nt

[Lars77]

2. King Abdullah is actually a pretty progressive guy

But he understands that you need a fairly well educated population to have democracy. I think he genuinely wants to create a parliamentary monarcy like the scandinavian countries have, or the UK.

[Octafish]

10. The PNAC pushers soon may reap the ramifications of success.

Much to their dismay.

[Lars77]

14. King Abdullah on Jon Stewart just a week ago:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-25-2012/king-abdullah-ii-of-jordan-pt--1

[Judi Lynn]

18. Thanks for posting the link from those of us who missed it! n/t

[DeSwiss]

22. I'm sure he's not worried.....

...because he has friends in high places.



- As a last resort he can always be beamed up at a moment's notice......

K&R