By Prof. Dr. Ali Hayasat More than three years after the launch of the political modernization project in Jordan, it is now legitimate to ask a more direct question: Has the experience produced a real partisan life, or are we still spinning within the same circle with new names and more idealistic slogans in form only? Theoretically, the goal was clear: a gradual transition toward partisan parliaments, expanding political participation, and reintegrating citizens into public life after long years of reluctance and loss of trust. Practically, however, the results so far fall far short of expectations. In fact, many feel that the experience has reproduced the same crisis with greater complexity rather than solving it. The problem may not lie in the idea itself, but rather in the individuals who managed it. A large segment of the partisan elites who took center stage treated political parties as personal projects rather than national political institutions. Here emerged what can be called 'reproducing failure with the same personalities,' as the same traditional mindsets moved under the mantle of 'modernization' without any real change in political culture or management style. Perhaps the clearest example of this is what is being circulated today about a former MP who participated in founding more than one party in recent years and is preparing to establish a new one after having 'learned from the mistakes of past experiences,' according to quotes attributed to him. The issue here is not a person's natural political right to pursue a new experience, but rather the more critical question: Has the mindset actually changed, or are we looking at a reproduction of the same scene by the same people? When experiences repeat and a self-proclaimed politician loses a portion of his allies and partners each time due to an inflated political ego, it becomes difficult to convince the public that the next attempt will be any different. In politics, trust erodes cumulatively. Over time, successive unsuccessful attempts turn into a form of political depletion, stripping the project of its ability to attract competencies and serious figures. Paradoxically, some party leaders constantly speak of democracy and partnership while practicing the exact opposite within their parties. One secretary-general, for example, announced his resignation some time ago under the banner of respecting the general assembly's will and cementing democracy, only to return a few days later to his exact position. He returned surrounded by a number of 'political advisors' and leadership body members appointed based on personal loyalty rather than institutional standards. Here, democracy becomes merely a media discourse, not a real political culture. The deeper problem is that many of the new parties appear remarkably similar: vague discourse, hybrid alliances, and generalized slogans consumed continuously. Consequently, citizens are no longer able to distinguish between one party and another because real differences are virtually absent. In the absence of a clear identity, money, influence, and personal relationships become the most influential factors, rather than political programs or socioeconomic visions. Perhaps the most telling indicator of the limited outcomes of this partisan experience so far is the performance of the current House of Representatives itself. Despite the arrival of more than 41 MPs through national party lists out of 138 seats, alongside a similar number who won via local lists, citizens have not noticed any qualitative shift in political, oversight, or legislative performance. Parliamentary discourse has not risen to the level of current challenges, oversight has not become more effective, and legislation remains confined to traditionalism and reactive approaches—as if changing names and party banners has not yet reflected on the core of political practice inside the House. Therefore, any serious review of the experience must begin from a fundamental point: rebuilding trust. Trust is not built through slogans, conferences, or multiplying the number of parties, but rather through a genuine political will that allows for a mature and independent partisan life. It requires leaders who truly believe in the institution rather than the individual leader, in internal rotation rather than monopoly, and that a party is a national project, not private property. Jordanians do not reject the idea of political reform itself, but rather have lost faith in the manner through which the experience has been managed so far.
By Prof. Dr. Ali Hayasat More than three years after the launch of the political modernization project in Jordan, it is now legitimate to ask a more direct question: Has the experience produced a real partisan life, or are we still spinning within the same circle with new names and more idealistic slogans in form only? Theoretically, the goal was clear: a gradual transition toward partisan parliaments, expanding political participation, and reintegrating citizens into public life after long years of reluctance and loss of trust. Practically, however, the results so far fall far short of expectations. In fact, many feel that the experience has reproduced the same crisis with greater complexity rather than solving it. The problem may not lie in the idea itself, but rather in the individuals who managed it. A large segment of the partisan elites who took center stage treated political parties as personal projects rather than national political institutions. Here emerged what can be called 'reproducing failure with the same personalities,' as the same traditional mindsets moved under the mantle of 'modernization' without any real change in political culture or management style. Perhaps the clearest example of this is what is being circulated today about a former MP who participated in founding more than one party in recent years and is preparing to establish a new one after having 'learned from the mistakes of past experiences,' according to quotes attributed to him. The issue here is not a person's natural political right to pursue a new experience, but rather the more critical question: Has the mindset actually changed, or are we looking at a reproduction of the same scene by the same people? When experiences repeat and a self-proclaimed politician loses a portion of his allies and partners each time due to an inflated political ego, it becomes difficult to convince the public that the next attempt will be any different. In politics, trust erodes cumulatively. Over time, successive unsuccessful attempts turn into a form of political depletion, stripping the project of its ability to attract competencies and serious figures. Paradoxically, some party leaders constantly speak of democracy and partnership while practicing the exact opposite within their parties. One secretary-general, for example, announced his resignation some time ago under the banner of respecting the general assembly's will and cementing democracy, only to return a few days later to his exact position. He returned surrounded by a number of 'political advisors' and leadership body members appointed based on personal loyalty rather than institutional standards. Here, democracy becomes merely a media discourse, not a real political culture. The deeper problem is that many of the new parties appear remarkably similar: vague discourse, hybrid alliances, and generalized slogans consumed continuously. Consequently, citizens are no longer able to distinguish between one party and another because real differences are virtually absent. In the absence of a clear identity, money, influence, and personal relationships become the most influential factors, rather than political programs or socioeconomic visions. Perhaps the most telling indicator of the limited outcomes of this partisan experience so far is the performance of the current House of Representatives itself. Despite the arrival of more than 41 MPs through national party lists out of 138 seats, alongside a similar number who won via local lists, citizens have not noticed any qualitative shift in political, oversight, or legislative performance. Parliamentary discourse has not risen to the level of current challenges, oversight has not become more effective, and legislation remains confined to traditionalism and reactive approaches—as if changing names and party banners has not yet reflected on the core of political practice inside the House. Therefore, any serious review of the experience must begin from a fundamental point: rebuilding trust. Trust is not built through slogans, conferences, or multiplying the number of parties, but rather through a genuine political will that allows for a mature and independent partisan life. It requires leaders who truly believe in the institution rather than the individual leader, in internal rotation rather than monopoly, and that a party is a national project, not private property. Jordanians do not reject the idea of political reform itself, but rather have lost faith in the manner through which the experience has been managed so far.
By Prof. Dr. Ali Hayasat More than three years after the launch of the political modernization project in Jordan, it is now legitimate to ask a more direct question: Has the experience produced a real partisan life, or are we still spinning within the same circle with new names and more idealistic slogans in form only? Theoretically, the goal was clear: a gradual transition toward partisan parliaments, expanding political participation, and reintegrating citizens into public life after long years of reluctance and loss of trust. Practically, however, the results so far fall far short of expectations. In fact, many feel that the experience has reproduced the same crisis with greater complexity rather than solving it. The problem may not lie in the idea itself, but rather in the individuals who managed it. A large segment of the partisan elites who took center stage treated political parties as personal projects rather than national political institutions. Here emerged what can be called 'reproducing failure with the same personalities,' as the same traditional mindsets moved under the mantle of 'modernization' without any real change in political culture or management style. Perhaps the clearest example of this is what is being circulated today about a former MP who participated in founding more than one party in recent years and is preparing to establish a new one after having 'learned from the mistakes of past experiences,' according to quotes attributed to him. The issue here is not a person's natural political right to pursue a new experience, but rather the more critical question: Has the mindset actually changed, or are we looking at a reproduction of the same scene by the same people? When experiences repeat and a self-proclaimed politician loses a portion of his allies and partners each time due to an inflated political ego, it becomes difficult to convince the public that the next attempt will be any different. In politics, trust erodes cumulatively. Over time, successive unsuccessful attempts turn into a form of political depletion, stripping the project of its ability to attract competencies and serious figures. Paradoxically, some party leaders constantly speak of democracy and partnership while practicing the exact opposite within their parties. One secretary-general, for example, announced his resignation some time ago under the banner of respecting the general assembly's will and cementing democracy, only to return a few days later to his exact position. He returned surrounded by a number of 'political advisors' and leadership body members appointed based on personal loyalty rather than institutional standards. Here, democracy becomes merely a media discourse, not a real political culture. The deeper problem is that many of the new parties appear remarkably similar: vague discourse, hybrid alliances, and generalized slogans consumed continuously. Consequently, citizens are no longer able to distinguish between one party and another because real differences are virtually absent. In the absence of a clear identity, money, influence, and personal relationships become the most influential factors, rather than political programs or socioeconomic visions. Perhaps the most telling indicator of the limited outcomes of this partisan experience so far is the performance of the current House of Representatives itself. Despite the arrival of more than 41 MPs through national party lists out of 138 seats, alongside a similar number who won via local lists, citizens have not noticed any qualitative shift in political, oversight, or legislative performance. Parliamentary discourse has not risen to the level of current challenges, oversight has not become more effective, and legislation remains confined to traditionalism and reactive approaches—as if changing names and party banners has not yet reflected on the core of political practice inside the House. Therefore, any serious review of the experience must begin from a fundamental point: rebuilding trust. Trust is not built through slogans, conferences, or multiplying the number of parties, but rather through a genuine political will that allows for a mature and independent partisan life. It requires leaders who truly believe in the institution rather than the individual leader, in internal rotation rather than monopoly, and that a party is a national project, not private property. Jordanians do not reject the idea of political reform itself, but rather have lost faith in the manner through which the experience has been managed so far.
comments
Al-Hayasat writes: Reproducing failure with the same personalities
display options :
Full
Main image only
without images
comments