Hussein Ali al atoom

Jordan’s role has its own algorithm. Do we fully understand the role of leadership in a complex regional environment, where a fine line separates a decision from its consequences?

Jordanian policy operates in a sensitive environment shaped by geography, amid international and regional pressures and decisions that are not comfortable, neither with friends and allies nor with adversaries. Jordan is strong, but it does not always have the luxury of choice; difficult and costly options, where sometimes the least difficult is still bitter, within a decision-making system shaped by complex and sometimes conflicting national, regional, and international considerations.

Jordan’s passage through the Arab Spring was not a coincidence, amid internal, external, and regional challenges, led by His Majesty King Abdullah II with wisdom and responsibility, with national and family support from Her Majesty Queen Rania and His Royal Highness Crown Prince Al Hussein, alongside the institutions and people of Jordan, creating a reform path that included modern constitutional and legislative amendments.

During the implementation of policies, His Majesty the King appears at the forefront, bearing criticism and the cost of decisions that may not always be implemented in the way they were intended. Here lies the importance of distinguishing between those who made the decision, those who implemented it, and those who bore its consequences.

The state bears the mistakes of individuals, but respect for institutions should not become immunity for those who fail when that failure is established. Reform is based on holding those who make mistakes accountable, and citizens do not ask officials to make mistakes on their behalf. Accountability is a national practice, not a means of defamation, personalization, or settling scores.

More than a century of state-building and the Jordanian experience have shaped an algorithm that cannot be understood separately from its environment and challenges: intersecting interests, sharp contradictions between allies and adversaries, political and economic pressures, and limited resources.

Some files, because they are connected to the state’s higher interests, are managed according to sensitive information that is not all available to the public. Therefore, they should not be judged by impressions alone, but read within their full context.

National work cannot be measured by what appears in front of the cameras. The absence of a person from the picture does not mean that they were not part of the scene, and appearing in the picture does not mean that they were the decision-maker.

His Majesty the King’s address before the United Nations General Assembly at its eightieth session reflected the scale of this responsibility, when he affirmed that the continuation of conflict is not inevitable, and that addressing its roots and reaching a just solution that leads to stability means that any miscalculation could carry Jordan into the region.

In a world of rapidly unfolding events, there is no place for traditional institutions alone.

This is precisely where the discussion moves from Hardware to Software.

Jordan has succeeded in building the Hardware: institutions and structures. But the challenge lies in the Software:

Politicians do not merely collect data; they identify patterns and underlying relationships between intersecting interests and sharp contradictions among allies and adversaries.

The strength of the system alone is not enough; what matters is the integration of human capabilities and technology to collect and analyze data and place it within the right context. In an age of information flowing in abundance, modern diplomacy must keep pace; presence and representation are no longer enough.

This vision is reflected in a number of international figures.

Dr. Jitendra Singh has presented a model that combines artificial intelligence and human intelligence. This intersects with Ursula von der Leyen’s emphasis on keeping judgment and responsibility in human hands, and with Keir Starmer and Lawrence Wong in using technology to enhance human capabilities.

Blaise Metreweli captures the idea in a powerful statement: technology gathers information and connects it across the virtual and real worlds, transcending time and space, while the human being remains responsible for understanding context, announcing a new era in the world of security and intelligence.

Jordanian institutions can benefit from the experiences of their international counterparts. The Queen Rania Al Abdullah Center for Environmental Science and Technology (QRACEST) can draw on experiences such as Germany’s UFZ and the Netherlands’ Deltares in connecting applied research with water, environment, and climate.

The University of Jordan Center for Strategic Studies (UJCSS) can also expand its research networks with international institutions such as Chatham House, while the Jordanian Diplomatic Institute can engage with specialized institutions such as IFRI, alongside benefiting from the expertise of RAND.

We must also benefit from the pivotal role of His Royal Highness Crown Prince Al Hussein in creating institutional mechanisms that enable Jordan to rise through the capabilities of its people.

It may also be useful to establish a national center for public opinion measurement and monitoring trends, or to develop this role within existing institutions, away from private companies, in order to integrate national expertise with global expertise in support of decision-making.

The phenomenon of excessive courtesy and social accommodation remains a challenge for the Jordanian state. Yet we have sound governance that evaluates performance, identifies individual responsibility, and protects institutions without protecting them by justifying their mistakes, and without weakening accountability in the name of strengthening them.

Leadership requires an official who takes responsibility, not one who hides behind it.

Not everyone who made history appeared in the picture, and not everyone who appeared in the picture made history.

The shadow does not mean absence, and appearance does not mean ownership of the decision.