Early reactions to the news exude disappointment – Abdullah has continued the tradition of bonhomie with the US and is, albeit oddly, perceived as a salvation figure for the region:

In recent days, King Abdullah II, popularly perceived in the West as being among the most enlightened Middle East leaders, has dismissed the prime minister and replaced him with a palace aide and loyalist, dissolved Parliament and postponed legislative elections for a year. [More]

But is it really so shocking? Or merely flying in the face of Western political sensibilities?

Look closer, beyond the prominent points of loyalists being appointed and one must consider that the move is less motivated by political pique and a desire to promote cronyism and more about a quick solution to the country’s debt crisis.

Jordan’s record of human rights and democracy is far from pure – let there be no illusion on that – but the recent development must, to a degree, be separated from the wider issues.

Economic crises have a tendency to spiral out of control speedily; had the King waited until the due elections – while the current Parliament refused to cut spending – the financial condition of Jordan would be even worse.

In which case, the regime is damned if it does – dissolving Parliament being viewed as undemocratic; and damned if it doesn’t – subsequent criticism comprising ‘should have acted pre-emptively’.

Which prompts the question: knee-jerk or economic pre-emption?