°®Âþµº

These days, signs of political activity are rife on the streets of Jordan. Campaign posters for the upcoming September parliamentary elections compete for space in the country's urban centers, taking over streetlights, roundabouts and pavements.

But amid the cluttered landscape of campaign posters and cliché slogans, there are few indications as to whether these elections will woo voters - in a country where the majority avoid the ballot box - or whether the next parliament will be any different from the last.

Since the Arab Spring began, public perceptions of parliamentary elections in Jordan have fallen into two broad narratives in the ideologically complex Kingdom. To many voters, elections necessitate participation. Whether it's the need to affirm tribal loyalty, boost tribal prestige and have a "service provider" representative, or the need to cast a vote as a sign of support for and loyalty to the state in these regionally turbulent times.

To others, elections are a waste of a perfectly good nationwide holiday. They are either convinced on a micro level that representatives serve only themselves, or on a macro level, have little faith in the electoral system on the whole as a producer of genuine representation.

For many in this camp, not voting is a silent act of political dissent. There are of course voters who truly believe that change is coming - as slow-paced as it may feel - and that voting is a duty to bring about such change. However, this narrative is typically lost amid the more dominant and polarising voices.

It's difficult to completely fault either camp. For the loyal voters, elections offer a gateway to influencers that can find their son a job, pave a crumbling street or connect them to services otherwise absent in more marginalised communities.

If that representative is a relative, then the thinking goes that they'll be more likely to answer a phone call. For the more cynical non-voters, the electoral system has underperformed and underwhelmed in the shadow of a debate over whether the State's political reform intentions are genuine.

Recent changes to Jordanian election law - an effort the state claims will help reshape the political system - have not helped quell the voices of dissent. This will be the second election for the country since the regional political storm took shape in 2011, and each round has come with its own amendments to the election law.

Critics have been quick to note that this new law provides a dressed up path for candidates based on tribal affiliations, refitting old realities into a new mould

The amendments have been the state's way of demonstrating its resolve for political reform, beginning with shedding the country's longstanding one-man one-vote system that has produced over two decades of fractured Lower Houses. Essentially, the system encouraged candidates to run as independents, which weakened the development of political parties, while empowering voters to support mostly tribal representatives.

Back in 2012, amendments to the law introduced a mixed system, whereby people still voted for a representative on a district level, but had to cast another vote for a closed national list that would occupy 25 seats in the Lower House, from a total of 150. Comparatively, the 2016 amendments replaced the single vote system with multi-candidate lists, whereby people vote for a candidate and their respective list.

Critics have been quick to note that this new law provides a dressed up path for candidates based on tribal affiliations, refitting old realities into a new mould.

A recent report by the election monitoring organisation, RASED, seemed to determine as much, only 6.4 percent of the tickets running in the elections are political parties, compared to a whopping 43.5 percent of tickets relying on tribal coalitions, and 39.1 percent of lists composed of independents.

Meanwhile, a survey conducted by the Integrity Coalition for Election Observation the law hasn't had a substantial impact on shifting campaigns towards political platforms. An analysis of campaign content revealed that the majority of campaigns are still dependent on empty slogans rather than well-defined political agendas.

An analysis of campaign content revealed that the majority of campaigns are still dependent on empty slogans rather than well-defined political agendas

These maybe troubling signs that the new parliament will look and operate much like its predecessors, providing enough of a reason for skeptics to stay clear of the ballot box. Despite the declared participation of opposition groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, whose political implosion earlier this year produced several fractured parties, the elections face a tremendous credibility issue and a subsequent trust gap.

Shifting those public perceptions won't be easy. Parliament hasn't exactly been an effective legislative body, and people know it. In an IRI earlier this year, 87 percent of respondents agreed that parliament had not "accomplished anything worthy of commendation," with a mere 29 percent believing the legislative branch in its totality is effective at all.

Despite 69 percent claiming to care about political form to a significant degree, 58 percent of those surveyed said they were unaware of the new election law. When it comes to actually voting, 57 percent in the IRI study said they were unlikely to vote, while 39.5 percent surveyed by RASED earlier this summer said they would be boycotting.

The skeptics and the undecided voters can either abstain on Election Day out of protest, or take a great leap of faith in a system with a history of disappointing

Granted, these numbers are likely to shift in the coming weeks and days as the information gap closes, but it will be performance that determines the percentage of people with an overall positive perception of parliament and the greater legislative system.

Changing these perceptions means overcoming nationwide muscle memory built over decades of parliaments ushered in through non-representative systems, and producing a body that tends to align itself in support of state policies.

Yes, parliament has been a source of comic relief over the years, but behind every cringe-worthy act that ranges from shouting matches to the occasional drawing of shoes or pistols in the heat of intense exchanges, public confidence in the Lower House has dwindled, and with it, overall faith in the legislative branch.

While some believe the state's "go-slow" approach to political reform to be a wise move in the face of regional instability, for many others these elections represent something of a Catch-22.

On the one hand, between the death of the protest movement, national fears of instability, new laws around free speech and recent constitutional amendments giving the King more centralised power - the Lower House represents the only remaining medium in which people can safely bring about the institutional changes they want to see.

On the other hand, the Lower House doesn't have the track record of reform, the new electoral system provides no guarantees it will produce reformists, and political power remains predominantly in the hands of the state that surrounds parliament with an appointed government and Senate.

So despite all the rhetoric, the campaign slogans featuring change, or the post-election headlines that will surely come - these elections won't serve as a sign of a political reform progress - parliamentary performance will.

The skeptics and the undecided voters can either abstain on Election Day out of protest, or take a great leap of faith in a system with a history of disappointing. Either way, these elections will do little to restore overall confidence in that system.

But how dissenters and reformists mobilise post-elections, how they hold whatever parliament is produced accountable for its actions, and how that parliament subsequently performs, will be the only factors that determine Jordan's direction on the reform path in the long run.