jordan pulse -

​By Noureddine Nadeem
​In countries that seek to build strong institutions, crises are not managed by searching for a victim, but rather by searching for the reality of the defect, diagnosing its causes, initiating its remedy, and enforcing its cure..
When the first thing that comes to mind upon the occurrence of any defect is searching for a "scapegoat" from the weakest link among an institution's employees, the problem is no longer in the error itself, but in the administrative approach that deals with mistakes using the logic of getting rid of people rather than reforming institutions.
​The case of referring the Director of Education of Madaba to early retirement, and what was included in his statement's narrative of events, has reopened an old debate about the concept of accountability in public administration.
Regardless of the details of this case, which remain subject to official procedures and whatever facts they may reveal, it has highlighted a phenomenon worth pausing to consider: Have some of our institutions come to lean toward punishing whoever was at the forefront more than holding accountable whoever created the defect or allowed it to happen?
​Sound administration is not built on knee-jerk reactions, nor is it measured by the speed of issuing decisions, but rather by its ability to distinguish between individual error and institutional flaw. When an error is repeated across multiple locations, the natural question is not "Who will we punish?", but rather "Why is the error repeating?", "Where are the shortcomings?", and "Who bears responsibility at every level of decision-making?"
​Transforming early retirement from a job-related right into a tool used in crisis management carries consequences that extend beyond the person leaving their post.
It sends a negative message to thousands of employees that taking initiative can be costly, that diligence can turn into an accusation, and that those working in the field are always the closest to paying the price, even if the causes of the flaw extend to higher administrative levels.
​This message is capable of producing a hesitant administrative apparatus that fears making decisions more than it fears obstructing people's interests.
When an employee becomes preoccupied with protecting themselves from selective accountability, they will prefer personal safety over initiative, stagnation over diligence, and literal adherence to procedures even in situations that call for swift decision-making and sound judgment.
​It is no secret that a state demanding its employees to bear responsibility is, in return, required to provide them with guarantees of justice.
Accountability must not be selective, nor should it turn into a means to absorb public anger or protect decision-making centers.
Administrative justice begins with an independent, professional investigation that gives all parties the right to present facts and determines responsibilities according to evidence, not according to impressions or the need to present an official to the public.
​The strength of institutions does not lie in their ability to hand down penalties, but in their ability to admit their mistakes and correct them.
As for institutions that settle for changing people while leaving the causes as they are, they merely postpone the crisis rather than solve it, because the flaw will return in another form, and with a new victim.
​The time has come to reconsider the philosophy of crisis management within our public institutions.
Accountability is not revenge, early retirement is not a punishment, and prestige is not achieved through fear, but through justice.