I think its interesting to hear people, whether westerners or whoever it happens to be, talk about wanting "democracy" in the middle east but when things dont go their way or dont happen fast enough, they expect middle eastern leaders to control and police their populations.
Take the womens' rights issue in Jordan. There have been instances in the past when both the King Abdullah and Queen Rania have pushed stricter punishments for honour killings. And yet conservative politicians and the Jordanian parliament blocked such efforts (twice in 1999 and 2000).
Should the King then ignore parliament, abandon all rule of law and do as he pleases? How does that serve democracy?
Whatever the personal wishes of the King and Queen, the fact remains that they live in a male-dominated and very traditional society where change will not come easily. Tribal societies (as in parts of Jordan) are notoriously traditional, especially when confronted with change, they have their own rules of law. In many parts of the world they dont even realize the authority of the governments they live under.
No law is going to change such a mindset, that applies to Jordan, the Middle East at large, and other parts of the world that have similar problems. However, education, more involvement from women, socially and politically,will slowly bring about a change. And thats something King Abdullah and Queen Rania are doing right.
Thats how things changed for women in the west, it might've taken them decades, even centuries, but things did change.
So before anyone goes blaming KA and QR for not peforming any miracles overnight, it would be useful to get a better perspective of things.
This is a good article from 2004:
Time Europe
It provides a summary of the reforms the Queen has been successful in carrying out (increasing participation of women in politics and behind-the-scenes lobbying) and those that have been repeatedly rejected by Jordanian politicians and parliaments (re: divorce rights, honour killings)