The following text discusses the first attempt to transform the authoritarian Jordan monarchy into a constitutional monarchy, in which the parliament chosen by the people was supposed, apart from the king, to serve the role of a real supervisor of the state. Such an attempt was made in 1951-1957. It ended up in a failure and, in fact, the return of the authoritarian methods of exercising the power. This failure resulted both from the specific circumstances of the contemporary Middle East, as well as certain permanent features of Arabic societies. Thus, it is important to trace back these events to show both the attempt at reforms, as well as the causes of the failure. The following text makes use first and foremost of English language resources concerning the history of Jordan. Also, the archive documents collected in the National Archives were used, especially the ones that refer to the correspondence between the authorities in London and the British embassy in Amman. To understand the issue, it will be necessary to go back beyond the year 1951 and to present in brief the very process of how the Hashemite monarchy came into existence.

Under the pressure of social protests in 1989 in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, King Hussein I announced free elections. There was a revival of the system of constitutional monarchy, with a theoretically strong position of the Chamber of Deputies. Then, in 1989-1999 there was a struggle between the opposition and the monarch, who strived to maintain all real power. After 1989 the opposition was represented mainly by Islamic fundamentalists from the Muslim Brotherhood. King Hussein I managed to win the political struggle by using the tribal character of the society. The monarch maintained complete control over political processes, and the ideological opposition, both Islamic and leftist, was marginalized. However, thanks to that, the monarchy recognized real opposition, the multi-party system, and the freedom of speech. Thus, on the one hand, Jordan after 1989 has become one of the most liberal Arab states, but on the other hand, the monarch controls the parliament and the government.

After thirty years of authoritarian leadership of king Hussein I in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1989 the first general election since 1967 was held. In 1991 in Amman the Jordanian National Charter was legislated. This document was a declaration of civil rights and the rules governing the society. Thanks to the Charter the multiparty system was restored. It needs to be stated, however, that the legislation of this act indicated legal nihilism of Jordanian society. The card apparently met the postulates of most ideological groups. Simultaneously, it did not replace the constitution in force and its statements were mutually contradictive. An attempt was made to combine European ideas of democracy and freedom with the rules of Islam. What is even more important is that the relationship between the king and social representatives was not specified. Eventually, the Charter facilitated the King’s political game.

Jordan is an Arab state that commenced its existence in 1921 as the Emirate of Transjordan. Its establishment resulted from a political game between the British and prince Abdullah from the House of Hashemite. The only justification for a separate state with the capital in Amman was the reign of the Hashemites in this area. In 1991, during democratization of the kingdom’s political system, the Jordanian National Charter was proclaimed. This document summarized the postulates and opinions of the Jordanian society. The analysis of selected passages from the Charter indicates complete dominance of pan-Arab thought among the authors of the text. It is also necessary to indicate frailty of Jordanian identity, despite several decades of the state’s existence. The article indicates the abovementioned dependencies and the fact that the dynasty authority remains the primary aspect of distinctiveness.