It's Debatable Part III
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 sixth, seventh and eighth debates were Investment (National Current, Qudwa and Takamul), Energy (Socialists Baathist, Life and Future and National Development) and Tourism (National Movement, Youth Party, and Blessed Land Party).
The Investment Debate
1. National Current Party – Ali Azboun: The National Current Party general-secretary had a good start. He was successful in the introduction round and the first few questions. Unfortunately as the debate progressed he seemed to fall into a repetitive cycle and was lost for words most of the time. Azboun presented their ideology as reformist, program-based, and realistic. He immediately branded the party as the second or third largest political party by the number of registered members. He made sure to frame the party as representative, arguing that the party has members from cities, villages, Badia, and Palestinian camps. He identified key issues which hinder investment and had a very well-rounded diagnosis of the problems. However, while his diagnosis was clear, he lacked clear solutions. He admitted he hadn’t read or examined the new investment law, (!) but on the day of the debate, he had an economist give him notes on it – I applaud the honesty. He advocates supporting local factories and industries but didn’t mention any of the challenges that face this step or how he will achieve this. He emphasized self-reliance, no dependence on foreign aid, and utilizing local talent and resources. It seemed everyone had a wish list in this debate and everyone was unaware of the dire economic condition of the state. ($11B increase in national debt in the four years of Bisher Al Khasawnah). Answering the question of how they chose their candidate list, Azboun explained that the higher committee focused on diversity (not the diversity you’re thinking of) of expertise so their list includes former judges, military and security retirees, lawyers, etc. There is a popular base for candidates, coalitions for the party, one for the national list, and 18 for the local lists. It seems to me that the smaller parties are putting their efforts into the local scene.
Takeaway Quote: “Our distinguishing feature is that we have expanded horizontally, with members in almost every city, village, desert, or camp.”
2. Qudwa Party – Eyad Al Najjar: Eyad Al Najjar set his party apart by saying they have no traditional elites. (Although a former arch-conservative PM - Abdel Raouf Al Rawabdeh - was a keynote speaker at the party’s launch ceremony in Irbid). Najjar continued describing the party as programmatic and dynamic, addressing day-to-day life of Jordanians as well as the state's regional and international policies. Qudwa made some good points, but it felt like he took a list from ChatGPT on how to provide a supportive environment for investment. Some points made sense, while others were way off - clearly not customized to Jordan or addressing unique issues Jordan experiences. Again, a party platform in the “process” of development . He wants more advertisement and PR for Jordan to help increase foreign investment and to redirect the foreign aid to investment (does he know how much of the aid goes directly for budget support and critical infrastructure)? He seemed clueless and populist.
Al Najjar also mentioned that their national list is a coalition of 7 political parties (he never named which parties). In compiling their list they based their choice on the parameters of the most qualified, popular support, and political technocrats.
Takeaway Quote: “Our political stability and security are significant assets that we should market more aggressively. Investors seek stable environments, and Jordan has a track record of being a safe and secure investment destination.”
3. Takamul – Fayez Basbous: A confusing opening statement - I really couldn’t tell what the main message was. It felt like a vocabulary lesson rather than an introduction. The approach to challenges was very shy. Basbous stated that corruption was one of the biggest challenges to investment. He was one of the only party leaders to address the role of oversight in parliament and focused on taking a bigger role in that oversight process in investment. (Notably, oversight in Parliament has emerged in recent research as a top priority for Jordanians). Basbous is a current MP and knows the powers of Parliament which are not exercised. Along with his co-debaters he also mentioned the same traditional “solutions” - tax breaks, vocational training, increased PPP, KPI etc etc.
It was clear the party had no idea how they would campaign, who was on the list and how they would choose them. It was brainstorming on stage. Basbous said they are still hoping to create a coalition with other parties. Maybe the debate was their outreach to other parties because it definitely wasn’t aimed at voters.
Takeaway Quote: “Promoting transparency and accountability in our government institutions is also essential. This builds trust with investors, showing them that their investments are safe and that the business environment is fair and predictable.”
The Rankings:
1. Policy and Ideology: No one takes this one, there was no clear ideology nor policy presented in this debate.
2. Persuasive Communication: This wasn’t a great group but I would say Eyad Al-Najjar from Qudwa party was the most eloquent. He didn’t have anything revolutionary or inspiring to say but he had a good command of language and didn’t seem lost in thought or nervous.
3. Branding: The National Current party takes this one. Right from the start Ali Azboun branded his party as all encompassing, diverse and representative and large. Qudwa and Takamul offered nothing for branding.
The Energy Debate
Socialist Baathist Party, National Development and Future and Life party.
Socialist Ba’athist - Zuhair Al Rawashadah
He introduced his party by smartly connecting the party’s political history with Jordan’s most well received and fondly remembered political era - the 1956 parliament and government. Then, he didn't have to do much else after that. It is enough to mention their connection to that popular government to make it stick with Jordanians. What can we say about the Socialist Baathists when it comes to energy policy? Nothing much. A lot of demands of the state, a lot of complaining but no real policy, solution, or vision was put forth. Even when he did provide some solutions, they were clearly outdated and far away from the political reality of the region. For example Mr. Zawahreh suggested we need to depend more on Iraq - the same Iraq that where several members of parliament threw a fit because Jordan registered the Socialist Baathists. Maybe electing several of them is not the way to get closer to Iraq.
Takeaway Quote: “The Jordanian Ba’ath party engaged in public work during the years 1954-1956. In those two years, under a decision by the Jordanian High Court of Justice, we participated in the 1956 elections and won as part of the political parties. We also took part in the government that resulted from this parliament. At that time, the number of members of the House of Representatives was 40, and he assumed the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs.”
National Development - Nathem Ababanah
He presented his party by presenting a list of services they want to provide to citizens - from employment to paying off student tuition. He was uninspiring. He read from a paper without making any eye contact. His talking points were closer to a Jordan energy fact sheet. There was no real policy, no real solutions, and of course no program or platform. It was your same old service provider, but this time on a national level not a district level. I really can't write much more without sounding mean. He was so bad that I won't be even featuring him in the rankings.
Takeaway Quote: “One of the party's goals is to mitigate the effects of unemployment through partnership between the public and private sectors, provide financial support to farmers, focus on expanding comprehensive health insurance, emphasize technical education and vocational training, and benefit from reducing university grant fees for students.”
Future and Life - Abdel Rahman Azouni (Head of the party’s Energy Committee)
First let me give a big round of applause for the Future and Life party. They were the first ever to put forth a head of a relevant committee to the debate. The presenter said the general secretary had to withdraw at the last minute due to a health issue but I don't care. This was a great move and it paid off. Not only did they assign this committee to a dynamic young man (+1) but he was well spoken, informed, and - my favorite part - he would not take BS from the moderator (who is now getting massively on my nerves - more on this in my take). He presented the party as a conservative and contemporary party. He then explained this by adding that the Islamic-Arab heritage is the starting point to their vision and then continued to say that they are a reform party. They want to reshape the government into a service provider, not an oversight and control mechanism over the people. (+2)
Takeaway Quote: “We had an important criterion in the election committee (In-party election commission), which was the extent to which this individual is saturated with the party's ideas. This way, when they appear on the national list, they should be promoting an idea and a program, not promoting an individual or individuals."
The Rankings
Policy and Ideology: Future and Life take both policy and ideology - he presented a very clear, easy to follow ideology. His policy recommendations were realistic., not revolutionary or contrary but fixes here and there. I thought that was an excellent approach.
Persuasive Communication: Unfortunately I have to say that Baathist takes this, only because he is clearly a veteran public speaker and used emotional talking points.
Branding: Future and Life and Baathist are tied - Baathis successfully branded themselves as representative and successful by hankering aback to Jordan’s only popular government - future and life branded themselves as a safe bet to vote for - we won't change too much but we will make the changes that make you happy.
The Tourism Debate
I am not going to bother with this one. It was like listening to a prolonged conversation between three bureaucrats. There were no quotes that were worth highlighting, no policy, no ideology and maybe a little bit of communication. Here is a link if you would like to evaluate this yourself.
My Take:
The more debates I watch the more I feel discouraged and exacerbated by the whole process. If someone had the brilliant idea of flooding the market to make sure this experiment doesn't work - then kudos, man. It worked!
It is so sad to see very good and promising parties bundled up with rambling, incoherent, statements. I had high hopes and frankly they are diminishing. But I will say this, there were a lot of “underdog” moments for political parties - such as the Future and Life party. I am very pleased to see the first party leader to step aside and allow an expert to take the center stage. Mr. Azouni was filled with energy (pun intended) and he honestly gave me a push to go forward. But then I started the tourism debate and I lost all of my energy again. I hope things pick up but I am worried these various parties will fragment the vote and we end up with a harsh cacophony - like five radio stations playing at the same time - it is designed to drive us away rather than make us sit and listen.