JORDAN - The Domestic Political Realities.

On the political front, King Abdullah has moved in a surefooted way since the demise of his father. He moved to assert himself quickly upon taking up the throne. Less than a month after he became king, he swore in a new cabinet headed by Prime Minister Abdel Rauf Rawabdeh, a member of parliament who had served as a minister in several Jordanian administrations, replacing Fayez Tarawneh. Further demonstrating his confidence, the King approved a cabinet which included fourteen newcomers; eight ministers from the previous administration retained their posts. A political stalwart and former prime minister, Abdel Karim Kabariti, was earlier appointed as chief of the royal court.

In terms of political freedoms, Jordan's stature as one of the more democratic states in the Middle East is self-evident even to its most vehement critics. But, at the same time, no one outside Jordan would argue that the kingdom is anything like a Western-style democracy. No Jordanian can challenge the fact that the king's authority is absolute. As such, it is often the case that during times of regional tension some of the democratic freedoms available to Jordanians - like freedoms of the press, for instance - are curbed or altered if it is thought to be affecting stability.

This was the situation during the past two years when Jordan had to cope with two wars in the Middle East that were politically sensitive for the leadership, and spearheaded by the US - one against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the other against Iraq. During this period, there has been a tightening of controls - partly because Jordan was a frontline in the case of Operation Iraqi Freedom, but also partly because the new global environment permits such tightening when it comes to Islamist tendencies - which form the main opposition front in Jordan. It is alleged that between 2001 and 2003, Jordan's internal security services accumulated greater powers.

During these two years the authorities, with promises of greater democratisation and greater female participation, repeatedly postponed parliamentary elections until they were held on June 17. The country's largest party, the Islamic Action Front (IAF), overturned an earlier boycott and joined tribal leaders in appealing for Jordanians to vote. Jordan's Information Minister, Mohammad Adwan, later told Jordan TV: "We're happy with a turnout of over 59%. It puts us on a par with the levels of western democracies".

However, critics pointed out that the elections were flawed as the constituencies were gerrymandered to counter the influence of his land's Palestinian majority centred in Amman and to strengthen the king's tribal followers. People of Palestinian origin amount to nearly 70% of the population. But the electoral system was weighted in favour of the southern tribal areas and the East Bank population, where the politicking of the IAF and other parties has not eroded tribal loyalties to the ruler. Thus, while southern cities had one seat per eight thousand voters, in Amman there was one seat for sixty thousand.

Observers say Abdullah is well aware that, in the future, his main challenge will be to balance the growing calls for reform with the stability which his father worked hard to maintain. The late King Hussein was a master of this type of political manoeuvring. But since King Abdullah ascended the throne, he has demonstrated similar capabilities and a similar relatively low profile but effective style. It is clear that the King would not try to substantially reverse the political reforms put in place by his father, rather he may expand them, but only as it becomes politically expedient to do so.

A lot depends on how the political groups within the kingdom carry out their activities. If their activities are perceived as having a destabilising effect on the country, then the situation could turn uncertain. So far the political groups in Jordan have adopted a fairly responsible attitude, despite an upsurge in rhetoric and anti-US sentiment in the kingdom over the past year.

The way in which the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the largest opposition group in Jordan, is behaving is instructive. Although banned from political activity, it operates through the Islamic Action Front (IAF), which has a significant presence in the Jordanian parliament. Soon after King Abdullah took over, the Secretary General of the movement, Abdel Majid Dhuneibat, pledged allegiance to him during his first meeting with the new ruler. For his part, Abdullah praised the group for its contribution to the stability of Jordan.

The Brotherhood had supported the former king's policies against left-wing groups, but it had opposed his Western outlook and moderate policy with Israel. This continues, more or less, to be the case. But the pressure on the Islamists has been increasing, reflecting the intensity of the American war against terrorism. If the pressures that are now spilling over from the Palestinian side of the River Jordan as a result of the new road map for peace get worse - in view of the squeeze being felt by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other rejectionist groups which have sympathisers in Jordan - the delicate political balance in the country could be upset.

Initially, after King Abdullah took over, the political groups in Jordan are gave him some breathing space, in order to let him "settle into his job". Now, however, things are back to "normal" - i.e. the opposition parties are pretty vigorous in challenging his economic liberalisation policies and efforts to get closer to the US and by implication to Israel in business and strategic terms.