Legally, there is no longer any presence of the "Jordanian Brotherhood", as it is a banned group, but the existence of the Nation Party is an expression of the group due to the organic connection between the two parties, which is known to anyone interested in this matter. Recently, internal elections were held in the Nation Party, attracting both domestic and international attention, not for the positions that were elected, but for the implications of these elections and determining which current gained the most significant benefits. Is what happened a reflection of changes in the party's approach, or is it an internal movement in a limited space that does not represent the victory of one current or the defeat of another?
Those who know the group and its legal or illegal presence know that the group's ability to shift from one path to another is not easy due to its intellectual composition and discourse, which becomes a constraint on the group during difficult phases. For example, the "Egyptian Brotherhood" before, after, and during their rule in Egypt changed their external appearance, but after their rule fell in Egypt, the group emerged without warning as an armed organization that assassinates, kills, and bombs. Even after their emigration abroad, there were disagreements and divisions, but they were not ideological or about the approach; they were the consequences of exile and financial matters.
What happened in the party's recent elections was not an ideological conflict or a divergence in approach, even if there were two groups. The group's history in Jordan has witnessed fierce competition between two or more currents, and the features of the currents have changed since the end of the nineties due to the influence of Hamas on the group's internal equation.
The approach that could have a counterpart in the "Jordanian Brotherhood" party or the banned group is related to its relationship with the Jordanian state and its positions towards what the state is facing, such as the Persian aggression, and also the relationship of the banned group and its party with external organizations. This criterion determines whether there is any new development or shift. However, the general discourse or competition between individuals and groups within the group or party is not a criterion for real changes.
Let us remember the factors that were the most important reason for banning the group, which was the discovery of armed cells in training or manufacturing. However, the state's approach to the ban decision and its application method, along with the existence of the group's party and its parliamentary bloc, led the group to deal with the decision by changing its methods of work and appearance to the public, not considering what happened as a pivotal station that requires a review of the approach and external relations or positions towards what the state is facing, such as the Persian aggression and the group's and its party's position towards it.
The group's history over a century has not witnessed ideological shifts and radical reviews in its difficult phases, but rather changes in methods, and sometimes it turns into armed organizations, as happened in its conflict with Gamal Abdel Nasser and the emergence of coup Brotherhood organizations, or as happened during President Sisi's era when the "Brotherhood" moved from rule to assassinations and bombings.
The banned group in Jordan did not feel that its ban imposed more than internal security measures on the organization and a change in the appearance of the group's leaders because it appeared through the party. Therefore, any competition between groups within the party does not represent a shift, and the specifications and positions of the competing individuals do not have ideological implications or carry a new approach to the issues that made the group banned. Therefore, any movement within the party has a limited ceiling in terms of the group's and party's orientations and does not carry anything new, just as the group's leadership elections in the eighties were between hawks and doves, but the group's path did not change.
The composition of the group and its party does not indicate the ability or desire for real reviews. The bet on time is still in place, and the relations with sister organizations that influence the party's decision are still present despite what happened in the region.
