Jawad Anani

A week before Dr. Jaffer Hassan’s new Cbinet secured the confidence of the House of Representatives, the Rifai family held a grand commemoration for the late Jordanian statesman Zaid Rifai.

Zaid Rifai was a master of diplomacy, a politician who understood the intricate

nuances of governance, and someone who skillfully navigated the complexities of political life. His contributions helped shape the web of Jordanian politics.

Zaid Rifai, held some of the highest-ranking positions in Jordan. He served as prime minister for approximately 75 months, as well as speaker of the legislative branch (Parliament). He also held other critical roles, such as chairman of the Parliament, chief of the Royal Court, while earlier on in his political career, he also held lower-ranking, but pivotal positions, including

ambassador to the UK and advisor to the late King Hussein.

During both our seasoned careers we had our differences in opinion, and conflicting perspectives, but I always respected his skill and his ability to prevent differences of opinion from devolving into ad-hominem attacks.

Over the years, I came to admire him and during his retirement, I frequently visited him, and in the process discovered his sharp wit and deep cultural insight.

After watching the recent debates in the House of Representatives, particularly Dr. Hassan’s speech seeking a vote of confidence, I couldn’t help but feel a sense of déjà vu. Reflecting on this, I decided to approach the issue from a counterfactual perspective, asking myself: What would Zaid Samir Rifai say about these proceedings?

What suggestions would a man of his experience offer to improve the debate process?

First, I would acknowledge that the 20th House of Representatives stands at the threshold of a new reform era—a direction both the King and the people of Jordan have agreed to embrace with a “big push” approach. But was the first debate on the government’s inaugural manifesto successful enough to reassure the public that we are on the right track?

My honest answer is: Yes.

The government passed the confidence vote with a comfortable, but not reassuring 60 per cent majority—one of the lowest in Jordan’s history. Additionally, most of the speeches delivered by the 110 MPs centred on constituent demands for better services, reflecting a traditional focus rather than a forward-looking vision. Dr. Hassan, in his response, tempered expectations, stating that the government would neither approve any legislation that it disagrees with nor one that is not fully vetted and analysed.

This statement reflects the government’s emphasis on incremental progress—a methodical and evidence-based approach that minimises the probability of recommitting past errors.

Meanwhile, MPs often see such projects as opportunities to increase the country’s wealth and development potential. Balancing both approaches is crucial for progress. If Zaid Rifai were here, he would likely voice frustration with some of the persistent violations by MPs—remnants of outdated practices that must be addressed to enhance the credibility of

legislative debates.

To achieve this, I propose the following measures:

1. Budgetary Constraints: Relax the constitutional articles in budget laws , which prevent MPs from reallocating or increasing expenditures. The only constitutional liberty MPs currently have is the ability to reduce allocations, though this rarely happens. Allowing MPs some flexibility in adjusting accounts could foster deeper cooperation and more meaningful exchanges.

2. Quorum Rules: Insisting on a full quorum throughout lengthy discussions is

impractical. Instead, a live-feed and dedicated broadcast channel should be established, allowing MPs to follow debates remotely. A quorum should only be mandatory during voting sessions, with elected Whips ensuring attendance.

3. Policy Enforcement: Enforce existing parliamentary policies, such as the

no-smoking rule, to enhance public trust and respect for the institution.

4. Strengthening Research: Invest in the parliament’s research unit to prevent

embarrassing errors, such as logical inconsistencies, misinformation, or misrepresentation of facts. A well-informed debate is essential for public credibility.

To conclude, I reflect once more on the legacy of the late Zaid Rifai and ask myself how he would view the parliament’s recent proceedings. While both Zaid and I would see room for improvement, I believe we would agree that the session, overall, earned a passing grade