jordan pulse -

By Nedal Al-Majali
I read your article published in Foreign Policy magazine titled "Where is King Abdullah?" It is a headline that raises a notable question about His Majesty King Abdullah II's presence in the political and media landscape. It is the right of any writer or international observer to ask questions about the performance and visibility of leaders, and to discuss their choices and responsibilities.
However, as a Jordanian citizen, I believe the question requires deeper reframing and refocusing. A leader's presence is not always measured by the number of times he appears before cameras or the frequency of his statements in the media. In politics, there is a public presence that people see, and another presence that takes place in decision-making rooms, where sensitive files are managed, positions are built, and communication channels are preserved.
Therefore, perhaps the most important question is not: Where is King Abdullah?
But rather: What does the King do when we do not see him?
Perhaps how Jordanians reacted over the past two days clarifies the difference between media presence and true presence. Their reaction to the prayer of Her Royal Highness Princess Iman bint Al Hussein last Friday was more profound and eloquent than their reaction to your article. This is not because the article does not warrant discussion, but because that simple scene reflected the image of Jordan in its quiet cohesion and the connection of its leadership to its society, far removed from showmanship or the pursuit of manufacturing a presence through headlines.
Some scenes do not require lengthy explanations, and some forms of presence are not measured by the number of statements, but by the impact left in the conscience of the people.
Jordan does not exist in a normal political environment. It is located at the heart of a region where wars, as well as international, security, and economic interests, intersect. On its borders are open files, and in its vicinity are major powers, all while it faces real internal economic, social, and political challenges. In such an environment, managing the state becomes an administration of balances before it is an administration of speeches.
Not every position is suitable for public announcement, nor can every decision be explained the moment it is taken. Furthermore, not everything happening behind closed doors is less important than what appears before the cameras. Indeed, diplomacy is sometimes based on keeping doors open, not closing them with a final statement.
Here, one must distinguish between the visibility of leadership and its effectiveness. A leader might make frequent appearances without necessarily being more capable of protecting his country's interests. Conversely, he may have a lower media presence but wield extensive influence in managing relationships, alliances, and crises.
This does not mean that communicating with citizens is unimportant; it is a necessity for enhancing trust and transparency. But reducing leadership to a tally of statements or appearances presents an incomplete picture of the nature of political work—especially in a state with limited resources, a narrow margin for maneuver, and a location in a region that never stops changing the rules of the game.
Despite its limited capabilities, Jordan has managed to maintain the continuity of its institutions and its stability amid major regional wars, collapses, and conflicts. This does not erase domestic challenges—from unemployment and limited opportunities to the need for developing public administration, enhancing political participation, and translating reform into tangible impacts on people's lives. However, these are files that deserve a much deeper discussion than merely questioning the number of times the King appears on screen.
Jordanian leadership is sometimes tested not only by what it can do, but by what it can prevent from happening: averting a crisis, keeping a communication channel open, preserving a strategic relationship without losing others, and protecting national interests amid conflicts that exceed the state's capacity.
Therefore, the more worthy question for Jordan is not just: Where is the King?
But rather: What does he do when we do not see him? What are the options available to Jordan? And how is a small state managed in the midst of a turbulent region?
The title of your article might be an attractive journalistic hook, but it is insufficient for understanding the Jordanian scene. The deeper question is not where the King is, but: Where does Jordan stand amidst everything happening around it?
When we answer this question, we will better understand the King's presence, his occasional silence, and his choices in a state that does not have the luxury of making a mistake, within a region that does not easily give anyone a second chance. Have you realized this now?