Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
Dr. Bassam Rubein
Jordan today cannot afford the luxury of pleasantries, nor can it bear the continued deferral of crises or the persistent practice of rotating figures who have already proven, through experience, their inadequacy in managing certain national and economic files. The challenges facing the national economy — foremost among them rising public debt, unemployment, and cost-of-living pressures — demand a serious review of the mechanisms for selecting public officials, far removed from the logic of appeasement and flattery, and anchored instead in standards of competence, integrity, and the ability to bear responsibility.
It has become necessary to ask the question plainly: are some appointments still built on objective criteria linked to competence, experience, and achievement — or have certain positions been converted into political, social, and personal rewards?
The legitimacy of this question grows when figures who have been associated, according to public criticism, with managing files that sparked controversy or contributed to the worsening of economic and administrative problems are moved into new positions that are more influential and more sensitive. Among the examples that deserve scrutiny and review are university boards of trustees, given that they are positions expected to play an important role in governance and in academic and administrative decision-making.
If an official has failed in managing a previous file, sound institutional logic requires that his experience be assessed and that he be held accountable before being granted a new responsibility — not that he be automatically transferred from one position to another. The continued rotation of the same names without objective evaluation of results sends a negative message to public opinion: that responsibility is linked not so much to achievement as to networks of influence and connections.
No less dangerous than this is the spectacle that accompanies some of these scenes — banquets, gatherings, and events of a showy nature — at a time when the Jordanian citizen faces mounting economic and living pressures. The growing phenomenon of media promotion of certain figures, presenting them as the only option or the lifeline, also demands greater scrutiny, because manufacturing an image in the media cannot be a substitute for a record of achievement, competence, and accountability.
A strong state does not need to polish individuals. It needs institutions that set clear criteria for selecting officials, measure their performance, hold them accountable when they fall short, and open the door to competencies capable of delivering real value to the institution and the nation.
Today, with an important constitutional milestone approaching — the formation of the Senate — the importance emerges of ensuring that the selection process is consistent with these standards, and that it reflects the need to strengthen confidence in the legislative and oversight institutions, rather than becoming a new occasion for reproducing the same names and the same alignments.
The Senate, given its constitutional position and its legislative and oversight role, needs figures who possess experience, integrity, independence, and the ability to contribute to legislation and to discuss public policies with the mind of the state and its responsibility — far removed from narrow calculations and personal appeasement.
Jordan is not poor in competencies. It has broad national expertise, public figures who have served the state and its institutions, academics, economists, lawyers, military officers, retirees, and community leaders — many of whom possess the experience and expertise that qualify them to bear public responsibility, away from personal interests.
The current stage needs a clear message: public office is not a reward, responsibility is not a privilege, and appointment is not an acquired right for anyone.
The criterion must be the ability to achieve, the record of performance, integrity, experience, and the capacity to protect the public interest.
Either we move to a new stage in which appointments are governed by clear and transparent standards that place the right person in the right place — or we continue reproducing the same approach that accumulates crises and weakens the citizen’s confidence in institutions.
In the end, protecting the state and its institutions is not achieved by rotating names, nor by banquets, nor by media polishing — but by enshrining the principle of responsibility and accountability, elevating competence over favoritism, and placing the national interest above personal considerations.
This is the real test before the formation of the next Senate: will the priority be competence, experience, and integrity — or will the approach of recycling figures continue?
The decision, in the end, is not merely a choice of names. It is a message to Jordanians about the nature of the coming stage, and about how serious the state is in building a public administration that is more competent, more just, and more accountable.
Dr. Bassam Rubein is a retired Jordanian Brigadier General.
