Back to Political Reform… Before Every Law Becomes a “Battle”

What happened during the “Social Security Campaign” was not an isolated incident, but rather a new episode in a series that is repeating itself at an alarming rate. Before that, there was the debate over the Education Law; before that, discussions of the Audit Bureau’s reports; and the list goes on. Each time, we witness the same scene: sharp polarization, heated rhetoric, rapid alignments, and limited results—as if the problem no longer lies in the laws themselves, but in the political environment that produces and debates them.

This is not a crisis of legislation… but a crisis of political action. When parliament becomes an arena of polarization rather than a forum for policy-making, any law—regardless of its quality—is bound to turn into a battle. The debate is no longer about “how to improve,” but about “who wins,” and this is exactly what we have seen repeated: major laws are managed with a confrontational mindset, not a state-oriented one.

From this perspective, talking about returning to the path of political reform is not a luxury, but a national necessity, because the problem is no longer a specific law here or there, but the absence of a political structure capable of accommodating differences and transforming them into organized institutional action.

More importantly, the roadmap is not vague; the Royal Commission’s recommendations have laid out a clear path for political reform and identified its tools: active political parties, genuine political representation, and parliamentary blocs capable of producing policies. The problem is not a lack of vision… but rather how we approach it.

The question today is no longer: Why have we delayed? But rather: Why are we postponing its implementation and sidestepping its essence?

The real starting point for the answer begins with the acknowledgment that activating party politics is no longer an option that can be postponed. We cannot continue with a parliament based on individualism and reactionary responses. Recent experiences have proven that the absence of organized blocs opens the door to sharp polarization and makes every issue prone to division rather than constructive engagement.

Party politics is not a threat, but a tool for organization. It is what shifts conflict from the streets to institutions, and from emotion to policy. When there are clear political blocs, debate becomes more mature, positions more stable, and outcomes more actionable.

On the other hand, we must pause to consider a fact that must be stated clearly: the Jordanian state is not fragile. This is a country that has weathered all kinds of crises—political, economic, and regional—and has remained steadfast. Its system is stable, its institutions have held firm, and, most importantly, it is supported by its citizens. This is not a country that fears politics, but one that needs to be organized.

Therefore, concerns about political openness are no longer justified; there is no reason to fear the emergence of political voices or the formation of parties, especially when they originate from within the state and are in harmony with its national framework. The real danger lies not in pluralism, but in its disruption.

The reality we must face is that the current approach is no longer viable. Managing parliamentary work through reactive measures and leaving it vulnerable to polarization is what produces these legislative “battles” from which no one emerges victorious.

Political reform is not a slogan, but a commitment. The Royal Commission’s recommendations are not a document to be shelved, but an action plan that must be implemented as is, without reinterpretations that would render it meaningless.

The message here is clear: if we want an effective parliament, stable legislation, and viable policies, we must return in earnest to the path of political reform, without hesitation or evasion.

Because the real question is no longer why we have fallen behind…
but why are we postponing what is rightfully ours, when we hold the key to the path?

Dr. Amer Bani Amer