Participation in the Elections of the 19th Jordanian Parliament: Incentives and Constraints

Abdelbaset  Alazzam; Mohammad  Al-Shara’a

doi:10.35516/hum.v49i3.1356

Authors

Abdelbaset Alazzam Yarmouk University
Mohammad Al-Shara’a Yarmouk University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35516/hum.v49i3.1356

Keywords:

Participation, Elections, Parliament, Incentives, Constraints.

Abstract

Aims: The study aims to reveal the incentives and constraints of the participation in the elections of the 19th Jordanian Parliament.

Methods: A survey was distributed to 840 electors from the study population. This study adopts the analytical descriptive approach.

Results: The results of the study showed that the evaluation of the incentives of the electors' participation came in a medium degree. They were in the following order: first, the axis of “Motivational achievement”, with a high degree; second, the axis of "Striving for needs", with a medium degree; third, the axis of "Integration into participation", with a medium degree; and finally, the axis of "Participation preference", with a medium degree. The evaluations of the constraints of the electors' participation came in a medium degree for all axes, the first of which was the "Economic constraints", followed by the "Political constraints", the “social constraints”, and the "Cultural constraints", respectively. The results also showed that there were no statistically significant differences (α≤0.05) between the field of electoral participation incentives and the study variables, with the exception of the variables: “gender,” age, “education”, and “occupation”. In addition, this study revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between the variables in the field of constraints of the electoral participation and the study variables, with the exception of the two variables: "gender" and "age."

Conclusion: The government and civil society institutions should make participation in the parliamentary elections a supreme national interest, and be based on impartiality, integrity and transparency.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Abdelbaset Alazzam, Yarmouk University

Department of Sociology & Social work, Faculty of Arts, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan

Mohammad Al-Shara’a, Yarmouk University

Department of Political Science, Faculty of Arts, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan

References

Barber, B. (2001). Parsons' Second Project: The Social System- Sources, Development, and Limitations. In Book: Trevino. A Javier & Neil J.Smelser, Talcott Parsons Today: His Theory and Legacy in Contemporary Sociology. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Biegelbauer, P & Hansen J (2011). Democratic Theory and Citizen Participation: Democracy Models in the Evaluation of Public Participation in Science and Technology. Science and Public Policy, 38 (8), 589–.

Bourricaud F. (1977). The Sociology of Talcott Parsons. Translated by Arthur Goldhmmer and Harry M. Johnson. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Buttorff. G. (2018). The Islamic Action Front: Between Participation and Boycotts, Authoritarian Elections and Opposition Groups in the Arab World. 91-127.

Fitzhhenry, R. (1986). Parsons, Schutz and the Problem of Verstehen. In Holton, R & Turner, B, Talcott Parsons on Economy and Society, New York: Rout Ledge.

Fuchs, S. (2001). Networks and system. In Book: Trevino. A Javier & Neil J.Smelser, Talcott Parsons Today: His Theory and Legacy in Contemporary Sociology. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Giddens, A. (1968). Power in the Recent Writings of Talcott Parsons', Socioloigy, 2, 260-270.

Giubilo, F. (2010). What Could be the Future of South Africa After National Elections On 22 April 2009? Transition Studies Review, 16, 948–961 .

Hamilton, P. (1983). Talcott Parsons. New York: Ellis Harwood Limited.

Holton J. & Turner B. (1986).Talcott Parsons on Economy and Society. London: Rutledge and Kegan Plc.

Holton, R. (1986). Reading Parsons: Introductory Remarks. In Holton, R & Turner, B, Talcott Parsons on Economy and Society. New York: Rout Ledge.

Krook, M. (2008). Quota Laws for Women in Politics: Implications for Feminist Practice. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 15 (3), 345 368. Https://Doi.Org/10.1093/Sp/Jxn014

Luhmann, N. (1995). Social System. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Maogoto, C. & Andrew, C. (2014).The Arab Spring’s Constitutional Indigestion: Has Democracy Failed in the Middle East? Liverpool Law Review, 35, 105–134.

Matthews, F. & Flinders, M. (2017). Patterns of Democracy: Coalition Governance and Majoritarian Modification in the United Kingdom, 2010–2015. British Politics, 12, 157–182

Neustadt, R. (1976). Presidential Power. New York: Wiley.

Norris, P. (2006).The Impact of Electoral Reform on Women's Representation. Acta Politica, 41, 197–213.

Parsons, T. & Shills, E. (1951). Toward A General Theory of Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Parsons, T. & Smelser, N. (1956). Economy and Society. New York: Free Press.

Parsons, T. (1949). Essays in Sociological Theory. Revised Edition, New York: The Free Press.

Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. London: Rout Ledge.

Parsons, T. (1954). Essays in Sociological Theory. New York: The Free Press.

Parsons, T. (1963). On the Concept of Political Power. Proceeding of the American Philosophical Society, 107 (3), 232-262.

Parsons, T. (1968 a). The Structure of Social Action: A Study in Social Theory with Special Reference to a Group of Recent European Writers, Vol. 1. New York: The Free Press.

Parsons, T. (1968 b).The Social System .New York: the Free Press,

Parsons, T. (1968 c).The Structure of Social Action: A Study in Social Theory with Special Reference to A Group of Recent European Writers, Vol. 2. New York: The Free Press.

Parsons, T. (1970). On Building Social System Theory: A Personal History, Daedalus , 99, 826-881.

Parsons, T. (1978). Action Theory and the Human Condition. New York: Free Press.

Robertson, R. & Turner B. (1991). Talcott Parson Theorist of Modernity. New Bury Park: Sage Publications.

Salo, A. & Kuusi, O. (2001). Developments in Parliamentary Technology Assessment in Finland. Science and Public Policy, 28 (6), 453–464, Https://Doi.Org/10.3152/147154301781781264.

Swedberg, R. (1987). Economic Sociology: Past and Present, Current Sociology 35, 1-215.

Tangian, A. (2017). Policy Representation of a Parliament: The Case of the German Bundestag 2013 Elections. Group Decision and Negotiation, 26, 151–179.

Trevino. A. & Smelser, N. (2001). Talcott Parsons Today: His Theory and Legacy in Contemporary Sociology. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Turner, B. (1986 a). Parsons and His Critics: On the Ubiquity of Functionalism. In Holton, R & Turner, B, Talcott Parsons on Economy and Society. New York: Rout Ledge.

Turner, B. (1986 b). Sickness and Social Structure: Parsons Contribution to Medical Sociology. In Holton, R & Turner, B, Talcott Parsons on Economy and Society. New York: Rout Ledge.

Turner, B. (2001). Social System and Complexity Theory, Trevino. A Javier & Neil J. Smelser, Talcott Parsons Today: His Theory and Legacy in Contemporary Sociology. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Turner, J. (2001). Can Functionalism Be Saved? In Book: Trevino. A Javier & Neil J. Smelser, Talcott Parsons Today: His Theory and Legacy in Contemporary Sociology. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.