Its Debatable Part II
It's Debatable is a Full Spectrum Jordan special debates edition. Jordan’s parliamentary election on September 23 will see over three dozen parties compete for 41 proportional seats in Parliament. This is a wholly redone political party sector, and a newly designed Parliament structure. Overall, this could be the most inclusive and ideologically diverse Parliament in Jordan’s history. However, there is a lot of ground to cover before then. While Jordanians are unsure about election integrity, disappointment in Parliament is a national trait, and political parties have been a political minefield - we still have the question, “If we do go to vote, who would we vote for?” These debates on Al Mamlaka TV are designed to help us with that as three parties each debate discuss a single topic.
The third, fourth, fifth and sixth debates were healthcare (Shura, Civil Democratic Party and Labour - not to be confused with the the other Labour party led by Rula Hroub); Water (Hasad, Democratic Unionists and National Construction Party') Public transportation ( Nahda and Workers Democratic Party, Construction and Labor Party, and National Loyalty) and fianlly National Debt (IAF, Namaa, Roya)
I will be scoring parties on three main issues
1.Policy and Ideology
2.Persuasive Communication
3.Branding
The Health Sector Debate - Civic Democrats, Shura, and Labor Party.
The fourth debate began with the Civic Democrats, a reconstruction of the ill-fated Civic Alliance. This time they are more focused on politics and less on public intellectual heft. It still aims to create a center-left civic government, removing religion from such a central role. While this may be a centrist platform in Belgium or Italy, it is radical in Jordan. The second party was Shura, which has previously been more of a political think-tank than a representative vehicle for citizens. Finally, the Labor Party chose a name almost exactly the same as the other Labor Party, which is bound to confuse voters looking at a ballot with 38 party names on it. For clarity, I suggest in the future to call this the Labor party and Rula Hroub’s party is The Workers Party (a more precise translation I feel).
Civil Democrat leader Adnan Al Sawaeer came out with a clear stance that healthcare is a human right. He quoted the constitution where it says it is the state’s responsibility to provide health care. He seemed to brainstorm the problem on stage even suggesting studies. But suggesting a study is not the same as outlining the challenges and solutions. We want to see that parties already have this and have a plan of what to do if elected. He recommended that a private-public partnership (PPP) could both enrich and reinvigorate the sector. But when pressed for details by the moderator, Mr. Sawaeer refused to answer, claiming it would take much too long to explain. This is why you have elevator pitches and concise talking points - fundamental to any party training or debate prep. Either they don’t have a clear plan or PPP is a new buzzword for political parties in Jordan. Overall, Sawaeer was all over the place with PPP frequently mentioned, but no moment of clear branding for the party. Some marketing and setting themselves apart for the other parties would be helpful to voters. Otherwise they come across as less articulate social dems with no memorable brand.
Takeaway Quote - “The human being is the central axis and the main determinant in the principles of the Civil Democratic Party.”
Labour Party leader Mutaz Abu Rumman showed a flawed social contract where citizens uphold their end, but the state fails to reciprocate with fundamental services such as healthcare. He highlighted the several different government health insurance types, and demanded a unified national health care system. He talked about the high number of uninsured Jordanians and emphasized the various healthcare exemptions provided by the Prime Ministry , Royal Cour Council of Ministers etc. According to Abu Rumman, these exemptions cost the state over 1 billion JOD over the last four years. That same billion could have provided much higher quality health infrastructure including the number of healthcare workers (30% understaffed) or equipment to guarantee adequate healthcare for all citizens throughout the Kingdom.
The Labor Party identified itself as a progressive centrist party without clear explanation of how they chose that label. Abu Rumman branded the party by size saying they are ‘one of the big four’ parties and emphasized their youth membership.
Labor had message discipline. He had one message and stuck to it - the variety of insurances and exemptions affect state provided healthcare and this must be optimized. It was a point that people can remember. He got his debate performance into a talking point the audience can take home.
Takeaway Quote “The multiple medical exemptions provided by various authorities the Royal Court,Prime Ministry, and Council of Ministers are costing the state over 220 million each year!)
Shura Party leader Firas Al Abbadi seemingly had no platform, introduced the party as a 100% Jordanian party and showed some interest in sports. That's about it.
Shura complained about the Ministry of Health and its lack of attention or care for the rural areas. (Inequality of services outside of the big cities is a topic that deserved better attention). Abbadi also noted the lack of doctors but failed to provide a strategy or solution. His only solution was a “free medical day provided by the party”. On a positive note, he did frame the inequality of services as a class issue and stated the government only cares for the urban well-off areas. He added some points on work conditions in the healthcare sector.
Shura repeated one thing, “If we get in power…” Its vital to remind people to vote for you, but also vital to show that your ideas work - whether you win your seat or not. Abbadi emphasized the legislative and oversight role of Parliament but didn’t tie how this would help the healthcare problems. He did manage to attack Jordan’s revenue streams, especially festivals, that he found to be a waste of money and should not be priority
Takeaway Quote…There isn’t one! It was like a novel with no plot.
The rankings:
Policy and Ideology: Mutaz Abu Rumman from Labour easily takes this one. He came off as the only one with a 1) clear 2) well researched 3) actionable plan. Between Al Sawaeer’s brainstorming session and Abbadi’s wish list for health care he stood out.
Persuasive Communications: Again Abu Rumman takes this one. He had extreme message discipline, simple short and memorable points - tied to actionable items. He presented himself and his party as a serious leader, not only by immediately associating the party to Jordan’s big 4 but he controlled the debate, he provided context, data and most importantly actionable items.
Branding: The Labor Party branded itself as part of ‘the big four’. Is this true? We don’t know. Who are the four and how do you measure them? The public can’t know, so this was a clever way to stand out and make Labour a party to watch. However, Labour and the Workers party (very similar in Arabic) will confuse voters and they may get each other's supporters. In the same way The Civil Democrats may get voters for the Social Democrats due to the similarity of the names.
The Water Debate
The fifth debate covered the theme of water - a desperate topic for Jordan which affects the majority of rural areas, our industry, and our agriculture. It began with the National Construction Party - one of the newer parties with a confusing name for voters. National Islamic, Civil Democrat, Social Democrat, Islamic Action, Communist, Baathist, Justice and Reform…these names give voters a clue as to their priorities (even ‘New Approach’) But national construction could mean anything. The second party was Hassad, an old-fashioned leftist party dedicated to dignity for Palestine, socialist revolution, and worldwide solidarity. This is maybe the only party that covers African post-colonial movements on its website. Finally, the Democratic Unionists who described themselves as ‘Conservative centrists close to the left’. (Don’t get me started )
National Construction Party's Barakat Oujan, a former minister, had a familiar government official tone. He outright rejected water tariff increases, which isn't surprising as everyone (outside of the government) hates taxes. He was adamant about the impossibility of having any hydro-diplomacy agreements with Israel but showed some leniency towards Syria. His debate performance was very general, filled with populist talking points, but it was clear there is no program, platform, or policy guiding the party.
Takeaway Quote “Give them (The citizens) water and also give them money, don’t take money from them. Why take money from them on top of it? Give them more money instead."
Hassad Party leader Mazen Al Rayal, during the first question, sounded more like an expert than a politician. He presented good data, but failed to make it relevant to the voter – it was like reading a fact sheet on Jordan’s water scarcity. Staying true to their political left ideology, Mr. Al Ryyal was strongly against any water agreements with Israel. When it came to Syria, he blamed the 2011 Syrian uprising for the water issues Jordan is facing. Perhaps his only realistic talking point was on increasing tariffs, where he argued for a progressive tariff increase. However, Hasad failed to provide a clear program or actionable items - disappointing given the clarity of their ideology. Once again, we saw inspired thinking but no real steps that could be introduced in parliament.
Takeaway Quote “There is a relationship with this colonizer state (Israel)that is absolutely untrustworthy, and they do not acknowledge any treaties or agreements."
Rakan Abu Trey of the Democratic Unionists started off the debate by completely ignoring the question posed to him and instead answered through a historical context for the water carrier project. He wants to pressure Israel to comply with the Wadi Araba agreement (Israel has breached 3 articles) and to create a neutral committee to oversee Israel’s compliance with the Wadi Araba agreement regarding water sharing. The party calls for lessening dependence on Israel for water and holding an international conference to find a solution. The party also calls for pressuring Syria to increase the water share for Jordan - especially considering the number of Syrian refugees Jordan hosts. Jordan should limit Syria’s construction on dams on the Yarmouk river. Democratic Unionists have done the most research on the topic and prepared answers and policy points. I wouldn't say they excelled but the other two failed.
Takeaway Quote “The governments are responsible for collecting water, for providing water to the citizens, and therefore they ultimately hold the first and last responsibility for providing drinking water for the citizens."
The Rankings
Policy and Ideology: Rakan Abu Treyah from Democratic Unionists takes this one, although he starts the debate by identifying their ideology as “Centrist conservative leaning to the left” (WHAT!) but they clearly have a platform, a policy and have done their research. The other two spoke very personally, almost like they're not representing a party but exchanging a friendly talk over tea and shisha. (Debate idea for the next elections - tea and shisha for a circle of party leaders to chat politics.)
Persuasive Communication: No one had this. Hassad sounded like an expert, Oujan was selling something, and Abu Trey was too in line with the state narrative. I don't think he was able to inspire young voters or any voters for that matter.
Branding: Abu Trey takes this one as well. He branded his party as capable, aware, and not here to shock the system. I don't know how much this will appeal to voters, but their points were realistic, in line with international standards, and achievable.
The Public Transport Debate
Oh, this was one of the most painful debates to watch. Truly, there was nothing here- despite the spoon feeding by the moderator. He didn't even pose a policy question like in previous debates, but rather told an anecdote of a Jordanian struggling with his kids and their transportation. This kick off set the tone of the debate, and this spoon feeding continued throughout the hour. I felt it was unfair to the Ennahda and Democratic Workers party - as they were the most prepared for a policy focused debate. The other two parties were the Construction and Labor Party, and the National Loyalty Party.
Mustapha Freihat of the Ennahda and Democratic Workers party positioned his party as the people’s party - a working class party. He bragged about this new blood and the lack of former ministers and officers. Instead he focused on the working class, providing services, and social justice. Immediate points won for branding.
He put everyone on the defensive from the beginning - perhaps by declaring the party free of officials, or his answers to the questions. It was impressive how he managed to bring up environmental issues when talking about public transport through the issue of pollution - something no one else has brought up in any of the debates. He also stressed solutions that don't depend on state money or general budget. He repeatedly emphasized PPP (and made sense when talking about it). Freihat brought in his ideology by talking about resource distribution and a social market where the state has oversight of a free market, rather than controls it completely. Refreshing to see - at least in this debate.
Takeaway Quote “The Ennahda and Democratic Workers Party considers and adopts the idea of fair resource distribution. It does not make sense to undertake a project like the rapid bus or light rail in the governorates of Amman and Zarqa and neglect to provide these services in other governorates. development and resources must be distributed fairly."
Construction and Labor Party’s leader Zeyad Al Hajjaj had some solid talking points, but he's not a public speaker. The party should have nominated someone with more experience in public communication. He lost his train of thought, and made it impossible to follow. There was no clear platform, ideology or policy. Some good starting points but nothing actionable. It wasn’t as bad as the last Trump-Biden debate, but it was really deflating. When pressed on a clear plan with a timetable for transportation he said they are in the last steps of producing their program (the election is in nine weeks!). His debate was like how Jordanians voice their opinions on radio call-in shows rather than a political party with a platform and clear policy.
Takeaway Quote: "The first solution we can offer or suggest is to restore confidence in public transportation so that the Jordanian citizen uses it."
We learned nothing about the National Loyalty party from its leader Mazen Al Dala’een, except that it came about because of the new party laws. Al Dalaeen outlined many problems and framed his party as more of a consultant to the state - not a powerful legislator (which is what parties are supposed to be!) He suggested additional taxation on private car ownership to improve public transport (very unpopular). Notably, he straight-up stated that their tribal base is something his party depends on. Additionally he did briefly mention how they will focus on restructuring the Ministry of Local Administration regarding municipal roles over construction permits.
Takeaway Quote: “Our standards for choosing names of people on our national list will be a man of high competence and social standing, in addition to having tribal support."
The Rankings
Policy and Ideology: Ennahda and Democratic Workers easily take this. They laid out policy points and discussed their ideology - social market, fair distribution of resources, environmental protection.
Persuasive Communication: Ennaahda and Democratic Workers again take this. His co-panelist did such a terrible job, that Freihat swept the debate. However, he seemed a little tense. That happens with public speaking and more exposure will improve this.
Branding: Friehat takes this section also. He introduced the brand from the first minute (your average Jordanian party, no former officials, working class and social justice). Maybe as second place, National Loyalty gets points for that tribal support comment at the very end. (Maybe to get tribal votes).
The National Debt Debate
The seventh debate brought some real gravity - the Islamic Action Front, Namaa Party, and the Roya Party debating on the topic of the national debt. Granted, government debt is not the most captivating subject. But it does offer many opportunities to bring in waste, mismanagement, spending priorities, economic ideology, and foreign aid dependence. Unfortunately, many opportunities were missed on a topic that will be central to any party in Parliament.
The IAF described itself as Islamic, Jordanian, and Arab. Then we caught a lot of concepts - a renaissance, applying sharia law, fighting against the occupier, serving the Palestinian cause, a democratic Shura, human rights, daily needs and comprehensive development ... .before he ran out of time.
The IAF immediately framed Jordan’s national debt as a political problem because of the Wadi Araba agreement and IMF loans. They also brought in the US and World Bank as causes of the problem. He said they have a plan - he just didn't mention what the plan is. Instead he spent his time identifying what the government did wrong and again tied it to external political pressure and Jordan’s lack of true sovereignty.
The IAF was its usual self - a lot of things they don't like, and a lot of demands and fantasy solutions - but not one actionable item. All that the IAF did was attack the IMF, World Bank, US, Israel and others without identifying how to cut those ties.
The speaker was never able to stick to his time limit and never conveyed substantive talking points. The only memorable demand was the liberation from Western countries and institutes.
One thing that I found intriguing is how they lowered expectations for a coming failure - they clearly don’t have a plan for governance. When pressed on providing a platform, he immediately stated that they can't be alone in this and they must form coalitions, and only then will they start identifying the problems and suggesting solutions within that coalition. (although he also said they have an ironclad 10-point plan to reduce debt!) For me it is clear that IAF will again use moral panicking, Palestine, and Islamism to skate through another election. Sad really.
Takeaway Quote: “IAF has general objectives, including the resumption of Islamic life in Jordanian society, the pursuit of the application of Islamic law, contributing to the moral and material building of the nation. It is an Arab-Islamic revivalist project aimed at preparing the nation for jihad against the occupier, serving the Palestinian cause, striving for the unity of the nation, and resisting colonialism.”
Namaa Party, right off the bat, Mohammed Rawashdeh branded his party as the solution to all your economic woes. He noted that they will cooperate the Labour party of Abu Rumman (one of the big four!) and likely increase their voter base and influence. He is a very passionate speaker and speaks with authority on the topic. I am not an economist (neither are the majority of voters) but listening to him speak it was clear he is an expert with a plan. It was refreshing. He attacked the government’s performance, and positioned his party as an alternative. He attacked the current tax system and argued that lowering taxes as a way to move forward. We can’t repay our government debt without economic growth, and we can’t achieve growth without lowering taxes. He even took a JD out and started waving it when he talked about the frequency it was traded in in previous years. (The only speaker to use props!).
Takeaway Quote: “At Namaa our fundamental idea to stimulate economic growth which is localized development, not local development, and thus development at the village level rather than at the governorate level. We want to divide the governorates into villages, and every four villages will be grouped into a center or zone, and development will take place at the zone level. This will create a greater economic incentive by providing jobs for the unemployed and reducing poverty and unemployment rates.”
Zreigat of Roya Party never got his brand out. He did mention they are family focused, and will target education and social media… I would have liked to hear the end of that sentence but he ran out of time. Roya provided solutions, was economically capable, and had good talking points and data on Jordan’s energy sector. He also demonstrated how changes in the energy sector can positively affect the economy. Roya proposed a mega employment project outside of the public sector (farming the desert) and he kept referring to think tanks and how Jordan needs to depend more on its human capital. He stressed the agricultural and tourism sectors in Jordan and emphasized on the need to develop them to create jobs.
When the parties were asked about how they select their candidates and lists, Roya went after political money. Zreigat stated that the parties are all about the money and the parties with the most money have the advantage. He then turned to the IAF and stated that they are by far the richest party in Jordan! Arguing ensued and this squabble amended the debate. If Roya wanted to draw attention to political money then they succeeded because I was left wondering about IAFs money stream and where it comes from and how it shapes their political platform. (see my previous writing about dark money in our elections).
Takeaway Quote: “The energy sector specifically is the largest and most impactful file that has had the greatest effect on the growth of Jordan's debt. Let me quickly mention an example. In Jordan, we know that the amount of energy produced is twice what we actually need. To achieve this production, Jordan is compelled to pay, on a daily basis, for the audience to see, around 4.1 million dinars daily to two energy production companies. This figure alone equals 1.5 billion dollars annually, paid by the state for nothing. Even if we produced this energy, our networks cannot handle it, even for export purposes. The core problem lies in the energy sector in Jordan.”
The Rankings
Policy and ideology: Namaa and Roya. While Roya failed to identify their ideology or any platform they clearly had policy taking points to follow- mega-employment projects and revisiting the energy sector agreements. Namaa didn’t put forth an ideology either, but they clearly had a policy. The talking points were clear but not always easy to follow. The IAF had a clear ideology (Islamist, socially conservative, anti-west). However, for a debate on debt and the economy they didn't have many ideas behind them.
Persuasive Communication: Namaa absolutely takes this one. He was passionate, engaging and spoke with authority on the issue. He showed confidence on the stage and getting that JD out was a smart move.
Branding: The IAF has a clear brand of Islamist opposition - but this has been in the works for decades and wasn’t showcased much here. It’s unfair to put two new parties against a decades old brand. So, I will say Namaa wins - outside the box thinking, very pro-private sector, and revolutionary without sounding unrealistic. I think young voters can find them appealing.
My Take:
I struggled with this edition simply because some debates (and debaters) were absolutely excruciating to watch. I almost didn't write this, but then I watched the Trump-Biden debate, and I realized we are not so bad off.
While the topics might not be as attractive as other debates, for me, these were the most important debates to be held. After COVID-19, health sector policies and readiness had to be re-examined. It reminded us how vital this sector is not only to our personal health but also for the nation to better face challenges like the pandemic.
Our water crisis examines both our relations with our unfriendly neighbors, but it also highlights an existential threat to our state. (One point: it was quite obvious that many of the parties failed to actually read our water agreement with Syria, because if they had, they would have had completely different talking points.)
Public transportation is crucial not only for helping our young and unemployed take jobs outside their communities easily but also, as I’ve repeated many times, it is one of the biggest factors hindering women from joining the workforce (Jordan has the second-lowest female workforce participation rate internationally). A safe, secure, and dependable public transportation system means half of the population will actually get to contribute to the economy!
And of course, the national debt is central to how we envision our state and the identity we seek for our country.
These are all great topics, and all very complex. BUT a political party should have all these sectors already researched, argued, and have a policy and a vision. It’s their job. It's sad to see that most were not up to the task. It's like your doctor telling you he doesn’t know much about your surgery, but will have a plan before he operates on you.
All in all, I believe Mohammed Al Rawashdeh of Namaa did an excellent job and may be the best from these four debates. He had a simple talking point, he was informative and authoritative, and he was also very engaging. He used a lot of body language. Additionally, Mustapha Friehat was a pleasant surprise, a true Jordanian underdog. Very environmentally friendly and aware of social market policies. That was a delight. Something I haven't seen even in Jordan’s largest parties! He was obviously nervous, but he piqued my interest, and I will do a deeper dive into the party and their platform. Really well done.
I think it is clear which parties actually gave platforms and policies and which ones didn't. This means the results of the elections will be doubly interesting. There are some parties that I will be absolutely shocked to see get any seats (and would love to know how and why!). But these debates are really filling me with hope. I, like others, got sucked into the whole branding of the big four or five parties that everyone talks about, but I was pleasantly surprised to find three additional parties that are actually worth following. I am excited for the coming weeks and hope I keep getting pleasantly surprised.