The Election Law and the Concept of Amendment

jordan pulse : By Qais Ziadat — Former MP and Member of the Royal Committee for Political Modernization
Talk has surged recently regarding proposals to amend the Election Law, particularly concerning general (party-based) national lists.
In short, refining and modernizing the law in a manner that serves the ultimate goal—a party-based parliament and a party-led government—is always positive. Constructive amendments aimed at achieving this outcome are welcome, provided they do not undermine the core philosophy of political modernization and its gradual progression.
Proposals that touch the very essence of political modernization are currently circulating, such as converting national party lists into structures resembling local lists. Under such proposals, party candidates would contest national lists through an open-list system, competing against one another within the same party list, thereby bypassing designated ranking in favor of individual vote tallies.
Such a proposal strikes at the core concept of political modernization and party building. Candidates from the same party would end up competing against one another, withholding votes from fellow members to maximize their individual chances of winning.
For citizens, the concept of a political party would lose all meaning. How can candidates belonging to the same party, adopting the same ideology and program, compete against one another? This dynamic dismantles the concept of party work as well as the objectives and vision of political modernization.
The underlying philosophy was to grant citizens two votes during the initial phases: one vote for a local candidate—whether an ancestral, tribal, or personal choice at the local district level—and a second vote directed toward a cohesive party platform and system they believe in.
On the other hand, certain refining amendments could prove acceptable. For instance, two parties could register a pre-election 'alliance' with the Independent Election Commission. If Party B crosses the electoral threshold while its allied Party C fails to do so, Party C's votes could be added to Party B, increasing Party B's vote total and seat allocation, thus ensuring that citizens' votes for Party C are not wasted.
Concurrently, efforts should focus on encouraging mergers among ideologically aligned parties to broaden their base, alongside barring party Secretaries-General and their executive or political bureaus from running on national party lists. This restriction would prevent parties from turning into personalized institutions serving the Secretary-General and their inner circle, enabling party leadership to monitor and hold their parliamentary bloc accountable in an institutional manner free from conflicts of interest.
Numerous ideas can be introduced to refine the law and advance the modernization process positively.
Furthermore, there is no harm in reviewing proposals such as appointing party figures to cabinet posts. In my view, appointing party members as ministers at this specific stage carries negative implications, whereas in the future, as parties mature, cabinet representation will form an integral part of the party-based political system.
At the present stage, such a move could harm political parties. If a party member enters the cabinet now, that individual will not hold a decision-making majority within the Council of Ministers. Consequently, the party will bear the brunt of public criticism directed at the government and be viewed as a partner in any failure, whereas any success will be attributed to the largely non-partisan government and Prime Minister.
In general, political reform must not take a back seat to economic reform. No economic or administrative reform can succeed without an advanced political system that safeguards transparency and accountability.
Source: Rum News Agency

By Qais Ziadat — Former MP and Member of the Royal Committee for Political Modernization
Talk has surged recently regarding proposals to amend the Election Law, particularly concerning general (party-based) national lists.
In short, refining and modernizing the law in a manner that serves the ultimate goal—a party-based parliament and a party-led government—is always positive. Constructive amendments aimed at achieving this outcome are welcome, provided they do not undermine the core philosophy of political modernization and its gradual progression.
Proposals that touch the very essence of political modernization are currently circulating, such as converting national party lists into structures resembling local lists. Under such proposals, party candidates would contest national lists through an open-list system, competing against one another within the same party list, thereby bypassing designated ranking in favor of individual vote tallies.
Such a proposal strikes at the core concept of political modernization and party building. Candidates from the same party would end up competing against one another, withholding votes from fellow members to maximize their individual chances of winning.
For citizens, the concept of a political party would lose all meaning. How can candidates belonging to the same party, adopting the same ideology and program, compete against one another? This dynamic dismantles the concept of party work as well as the objectives and vision of political modernization.
The underlying philosophy was to grant citizens two votes during the initial phases: one vote for a local candidate—whether an ancestral, tribal, or personal choice at the local district level—and a second vote directed toward a cohesive party platform and system they believe in.
On the other hand, certain refining amendments could prove acceptable. For instance, two parties could register a pre-election 'alliance' with the Independent Election Commission. If Party B crosses the electoral threshold while its allied Party C fails to do so, Party C's votes could be added to Party B, increasing Party B's vote total and seat allocation, thus ensuring that citizens' votes for Party C are not wasted.
Concurrently, efforts should focus on encouraging mergers among ideologically aligned parties to broaden their base, alongside barring party Secretaries-General and their executive or political bureaus from running on national party lists. This restriction would prevent parties from turning into personalized institutions serving the Secretary-General and their inner circle, enabling party leadership to monitor and hold their parliamentary bloc accountable in an institutional manner free from conflicts of interest.
Numerous ideas can be introduced to refine the law and advance the modernization process positively.
Furthermore, there is no harm in reviewing proposals such as appointing party figures to cabinet posts. In my view, appointing party members as ministers at this specific stage carries negative implications, whereas in the future, as parties mature, cabinet representation will form an integral part of the party-based political system.
At the present stage, such a move could harm political parties. If a party member enters the cabinet now, that individual will not hold a decision-making majority within the Council of Ministers. Consequently, the party will bear the brunt of public criticism directed at the government and be viewed as a partner in any failure, whereas any success will be attributed to the largely non-partisan government and Prime Minister.
In general, political reform must not take a back seat to economic reform. No economic or administrative reform can succeed without an advanced political system that safeguards transparency and accountability.
Source: Rum News Agency