Home

Internet protests against rising energy prices

Tareq%20Baconi.jpg

Jordanian citizens might have been more adaptable to understanding the rationale behind price rises if they were coupled with an effort to achieve a more transparent and just form of governance.

Tareq Baconi
16 June 2012

Jordan is facing considerable economic challenges which require structural reform. The government, however, appears to be attempting to circumvent such reform by prescribing inadequate solutions and temporary measures in an attempt to elicit a quick fix. Perhaps it fears provoking popular outrage in the midst of a dire economic situation, but the haphazard approach has neither limited the public backlash nor provided a sufficient response to Jordan’s economic imbalance.

On May 24, the government announced new electricity rates which were 23% to 125% higher than the rates to date, raising electricity prices to, on average, 89 fils/kWh. In response to the anticipated demonstrations, the government was quick to highlight – and assure Jordanians – that these rates would impact only specific sectors within the country, including banking, telecommunications, water, hotel, ports, large industry (mining) and street lights (municipal).

The government insisted that these increases were fair and would shield citizens and small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) that would have otherwise been unfairly impacted. It also stressed that the rise in the price of 95-Octane fuel (which it announced almost concurrently) to JD1/litre from JD0.795/litre would similarly target specific sectors and exempt citizens.

These tenuous justifications have barely staved off swelling opposition. Consumers and exempted sectors not immediately impacted by the price hikes will nonetheless almost certainly be affected by the rising prices of commodities and services. Sectors that face the brunt of the price increase will invariably have to cut their own costs and reduce employment.

The public reaction was reminiscent of the 1989 Jordanian uprisings – April 1989 protests in South Jordan against economic hardships which ultimately caused martial law to be lifted - with the added virtual dimension. Over the past two weeks, Jordanian blogs and social networks have been filled with angry protestations and accusations against government actions. These criticisms further swelled when the government announced additional taxes on alcohol and tobacco, with citizens quipping that the government was taxing their last consolation.   

Facilitated by the internet, these protests were widespread, both geographically and demographically. Unlike the 1989 riots, they were not centred in Jordan’s southern governorates but were widespread across the country. Neither were they limited to low earning citizens but rather they transcended income brackets.

Most importantly, they sprang off a yearlong struggle which has been calling for reform and change.

There is no denying that the government has an urgent need to tackle the economic challenges Jordan is facing. Specifically, it needs to rationalise the discrepancy between its costing and pricing of power generation; even after these increases, the price of electricity remains less than half of the National Electricity Company’s (NEPCO) generation cost.

Nonetheless, the price hikes were clearly not perceived by Jordanians as the right approach to deal with these underlying economic issues. Despite their tangible impact, they were actually viewed by many as insufficient, ill-informed or wrongly targeted. Alternative strategies such as the overhauling of the taxation system to introduce tax brackets were immediately put forward and debated in the mainstream media.

The government’s attempt to underplay the impact of these price hikes served simply to fuel resentment against the new policies and feed suspicions of corruption. Jordanian citizens might have been more adaptable to understanding the rationale behind price rises if they were coupled with an effort to achieve a more transparent and just form of governance. In the absence of this, discourse emerging from the protests is likely to continue to reflect a deeply held perception that ending corruption and holding embezzlers accountable will generate far more income for the government than these price hikes ever could.

To stay up to date with our columnists, bookmark our You Tell Us page and follow the columnists on twitter.

How do we work after coronavirus?

The pandemic has profoundly changed our working lives. Millions have lost their jobs; others have had no choice but to continue working at great risk to their health. Many more have shouldered extra unpaid labour such as childcare.

Work has also been redefined. Some workers are defined as 'essential' – but most of them are among the lowest-paid in our societies.

Could this be an opportunity?

Amid the crisis, there has been a rise in interest in radical ideas, from four-day weeks to universal basic income.

Join us on 5pm UK time on 20 August as we discuss whether the pandemic might finally be a moment for challenging our reliance on work.

In conversation:

Sarah Jaffe, journalist and author of 'Work Won't Love You Back: How Devotion to Our Jobs Keeps Us Exploited, Exhausted, and Alone', due to be published next year.

Amelia Horgan, academic and author of 'Lost in Work: Escaping Capitalism', also due to be published next year.

Chair: Alice Martin, advisory board member of Autonomy, a think tank dedicated to the future of work.

Had enough of ‘alternative facts’? openDemocracy is different Join the conversation: get our weekly email

Comments

We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.
Audio available Bookmark Check Language Close Comments Download Facebook Link Email Newsletter Newsletter Play Print Share Twitter Youtube Search Instagram WhatsApp yourData