The decision to prohibit the march called for by the National Forum to Support Resistance and Protect the Homeland and the Preparatory Committee for the National Front raises numerous essential questions about the state of public freedoms in Jordan, and about the seriousness of the repeated official rhetoric concerning political reform and democratic modernization.
The event that was banned was not a call to chaos or breach of public security, but was a peaceful march aimed at declaring solidarity with the Palestinian people, denouncing the ongoing genocide in Gaza, and condemning the escalating assaults on the Al-Aqsa Mosque as well as Islamic and Christian holy sites.
This prohibition comes at a time when occupied Jerusalem faces daily incursions by extremist settlers, while the occupation leaders announce their intention to expand Judaization measures and impose new realities on the ground, in a blatant challenge to international law and the sentiments of millions of Arabs, Muslims, and Christians worldwide.
It is all the more perplexing as stated in the forum's statement that this decision is issued while the capitals of the world are teeming with marches and popular events in solidarity with Palestine, and rejection of the genocidal war committed by the occupation. At a time when many countries open their public spaces for the expression of humanitarian and political positions, the space for peaceful expression in a country that has always been at the forefront of defending the Palestinian cause is being restricted.
The contradiction does not end here; the Jordanian citizen repeatedly observes the closing of streets and disruption of traffic for long hours during national celebrations or sporting events, without that constituting a reason for prohibition or ban, while peaceful political events are subjected to restriction and prohibition under the pretext of maintaining public order. This raises a legitimate question: Has the criterion for permission or prohibition become linked to the nature of the political message carried by the event, not to the extent of its commitment to peace and law?
The Jordanian Constitution guarantees citizens the right to express their opinions and peaceful assembly, and the political modernization system has presented itself as a national project for the transition towards a party-based parliamentary state founded on popular participation and political pluralism. However, the continuation of such decisions empties that system of its real content, turning it into mere slogans that find no practical reflection on the ground.
If the goal of political modernization is to produce a real political life, then the first test of its success lies in respecting the right of citizens and political forces to peacefully express their positions, not in restricting public space and reproducing the same restrictions that Jordanians have complained about for decades.
The greatest danger that any political reform process can face is not criticism or opposition, but the widening gap between official discourse and practical application. When citizens feel that what they hear about freedoms does not align with what they see on the ground, trust in institutions declines, reform projects lose their persuasive power, and become subject to skepticism and public mockery.
Jordan, facing significant regional and political challenges, needs more than ever to expand the public space and enhance trust between the state and society, because strong states do not fear peaceful voices, but see them as evidence of societal vitality and its partnership in defending the homeland and its national and humanitarian causes, foremost among them the Palestinian cause.
