Building
Where is the building located?
--91.34.180.185 (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Royal veto power
The clause allowing a bill to become law once both chambers approve it with a 2/3 majority, overriding a royal veto:
- Since when does this clause exist?
- Has it ever been applied?
The article delicately hints at the way families closely associated with the royal household are holding a monopole over positions of power. Keeping this in mind, the 2nd question becomes very stringent indeed. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Makeandtoss: hi. I didn't expect my edit to last, but I had wished that whoever will go against it would first come here, to the talk-page, and make the effort of giving a honest answer to the question(s) I have asked. The difference between on paper (de jure) and in reality (de facto) are of the utmost relevance, as stiff-upper-lipped former colonial masters of the region would put it :)) I'm looking forward to see the results of your research in this matter. And I mean it. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- There’s nothing to discuss when you add an unsourced description; “consultative”. The legislature is indeed limited in its powers. 2/3 of Parliament voting against an issue is difficult but not unprecedented. Overriding the King’s veto requires a two thirds majority, i.e. all Representatives and one royally appointed Senator would have to vote against. It happened once recently if I remember reading correctly. It was in one Freedomhouse report ~2006-2011. Also please stop the condescending attitude. We realize that you are privileged to live in a Western democracy, wherever that is, but no one here cares. Thankfully editing on Wikipedia is more about the quality of the arguments and sources editors present, not on their country of origin or socioeconomic and political status. You can forward your arguments in a respectful manner without acting superior and accusing others of inferiority. This is not the first time you have displayed this attitude on Wikipedia and it certainly will not be the last. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Makeandtoss: Human rights in Jordan states (w/o a source; I just tagged it) that "The constitution concentrates executive and legislative authority in the king." It also mentions the fact that the Senators, i.e. all members of the upper chamber, are appointed by the King - is that inaccurate? Having 2/3 of them voting against the veto of His Majesty is a very tenuous proposal. There is much more relevant reading on that page and the linked reports and articles. But the litmus test remains the answer to my question: did the parliament ever overturn the King's veto? You say yes, and thank you for that information. Please do add to the article that example, because it would be extremely relevant. Believe me or not, I am most honestly in awe of what the Royal Family and Jordan as a state have managed to achieve considering the regional context and short period of existence. I don't see any comparable example in the Arab world and I don't have any reason not to be very happy about that. However, this being Wikipedia (it's designed for global, as opposed to local consumption) and also knowing that nobody expects (too many) miracles from anyone, West or East, it's objectively more productive and creates a better image for Jordan not to push statements beyond plausibility. The nuanced 2018 Human Rights Watch report for instance was excellent in helping me understand where things stand. I apologise for sounding condescending, that wasn't the intention, it's just an old Romanian reaction to official claims that sound far-fetched: under Ceauşescu the country ended up going down the drain, but official reports made it sound like it was just about to overtake the US economically and socially, and all people had to hold against it was - this type of humour. In the given circumstances it was a good approach, as it saves you from strokes and despair, keeps things in perspective and doesn't lead to violence (which, some say, is also its downside, as it makes people accept too much until they do finally explode, as seen almost exactly 31 years ago). Jordan is definitely a very different country from that, with completely different circumstances. But, as all nations that emerged from the Ottoman Empire after centuries of stunted progress can tell, there are excellent reasons for national pride, and excellent reasons for keeping one's feet on the ground and remaining objective about how much ground there still is to make up. There are few people I respect more, anywhere in the world, than Dr. Rima Khalaf-Hunaidi and her Arab Human Development Reports. The fact that she received the King Hussein Leadership Prize is a medal of merit to the King and Jordan, too. I'm trying, wherever I live, to do the same, in a much, much more modest way: stay critical in a constructive way, for the very sake of those around me. Hiding one's head in the sand, "good or bad, my country", is the worst and most unpatriotic thing one can do. If I believe to sniff the scent of that attitude, which I've been trained to do a mile upwind, then I'll have a hard time not to react with that specific kind of humour you noticed (and misunderstood, it seems). In short: if a Western tourist or student reads this article, they expect plain language, like in any WP article on a parliament, not polite "between the lines" hints about what to expect. If that's not forthcoming, the article is flawed. This is my honest conviction. Have a great day & stay well, Arminden (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: Sorry, I just looked it up again. You're writing: "all Representatives and one royally appointed Senator would have to vote against [the royal veto]". I thought you meant "one royally appointed Senator" as opposed to other, elected ones; and they are all royally appointed, according to the article. Anyway, your wording allows both readings. However, the article here states that "If both houses pass the bill by a two-thirds majority it becomes an Act of Parliament overriding the King's veto." That's very different from what you're saying: 2/3 of 65 is ca. 44 (forty-four!) Senators, not one. So deffinitely, if there ever was a case of 44 royally appointed Senators voting against the King, please put it into the article. Alternatively, if the article got it wrong and 1 Senator would do, pls fix it. As of now, it makes no sense. PS: I often went into such a discussion with a firmly held conviction and came out learning smth new. Who knows. Arminden (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Both houses would meet jointly in such a case and they vote jointly. Two thirds out of 195 means 130, i.e. all the House has to vote for it (rethinking about that you don’t even need one royally appointed senator since its simply two thirds rather than 50%+1). I don’t conflate patriotism with burying one’s head in the sand. The article is flawed in many ways, including calling the Parliament consultative when it is neither so theoretIcally or practically. It is weak practically and slightly weak theoretically, that doesn’t mean its consultative. Anyone who wants to improve article is welcome. But “consultative” is not an improvement. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
It says "If both houses pass the bill by a two-thirds majority...". In any democracy, that means: each house votes separately. If you are sure that in Jordan it's different (is it? I wonder), then go ahead and correct the text, add "jointly/together".
If a body is in a substantial part nominated by a person, and that body prepares a bill, hands it over to that very same person, who makes the decision if to follow it or reject it: then that body is called "consultative". It's similar to an adviser. That's how I see the meaning of the word. The CIA or Pentagon prepares a paper with advice for the US President: he reads it (or not, see Trump), and decides if to make it into policy or not. If you find a better word that expresses the same, go ahead. I'm not an English native speaker and often lack the exactly right word, but for me that's the closest to reality. Arminden (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- A joint session of both houses is customary in many democracies. The House can overrule the Senate in a joint session if it manages to gather a two thirds vote (when all the house votes against the Senate). The completely elected House has exclusive authority to force the government’s resignation. “Consultative” is simply not descriptive of the situation nor supported by any source. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
M&T, I don't like to play who's-the-most-stubborn games. You're either not reading what I'm saying, or you're choosing to only pick the convenient bits. "If both houses pass the bill by a two-thirds majority..." means exactly what I said. Address it if you know how, but don't bother to answer to me, 'cause I'm not the topic here and I've had enough. Also, try to make the effort and read the article you've linked. In all the countries listed there, a joined session for the purpose of legislation is like a white giraffe. Most countries don't have such a thing, and an exception, India (was there a second example?) had maybe 3 occurrences since independence, which went into history - precisely for being such exceptions. So don't deal with contradicting me, deal with the matter at hand. I've said all I cared to say, bye. Arminden (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- I sincerely have no idea why you responded in such manner. Australia is a democracy and has a joint session voting over bills. That directly refutes your argument that no such thing exists elsewhere. The fact that the Jordanian House has exclusive authority to force the government’s resignation also refuted your claim that the House is “consultative”. It is not my problem if you do not have any counterarguments to make. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)