It’s Debatable - Special Edition

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. 

I will kick off the first edition with the three debates that have already taken place and after the next three debates I will publish a new edition. The way Al Mamalaka station has designed the debates is to give every three parties one issue to debate. The first three topics were unemployment (Mithaq, Eradah and HASHD), Education (Social Democrats, National Islamic Party and New Approach) and lastly Public sector reform ( Azm, Labor and Taqqadum). 

I will be scoring parties on three main issues

1.Policy and Ideology 

2.Persuasive  Communication 

3.Branding 

1. The Unemployment Debate (Mithaq, HASHD, Eradah) 

The first debate began with two of the largest and newest parties - Mithaq and Eradah. I have called these the ‘tweak’ parties because they propose technocratic tweaks to the system rather than revolution, overhaul, or reform. The third party was HASHD which is openly revolutionary, led by persevering socialist Abla Abu Elbe. 

Mohammad Momani of Mithaq provided a clear brand for the party - a party of organized discipline, and massive proposals - a platform to connect job seekers with employers, a plan to replace foreign workers with Jordanians, and support the private sector in vocational training. He held that the private sector was responsible for employment, and the private sector is responsible for vocational training. He also called his party a conservative party, leading to a confusing political question, since many Jordanians think of Islamists as conservative.

Takeaway quote - “the private sector is directly responsible for job creation, but we need to enable the private sector and give it the space to grow and develop so that it can create jobs and positions for job seekers.”

Abla Abu Elbe directly contradicted Momani by saying employment is the responsibility of the state - she even cited the Constitution. She called on the government to ensure employment by equally distributing projects between the governorates and reducing dependence on foreign aid. Elbe clearly branded her party as leftist and experienced (at least in terms of party congresses). She proposed classic socialist ideas that supported the working class and denounced the state. Implementing her ideas would be a complete overhaul of the economy. 

Takeaway quote - “We are entirely aligned with the perspective that the state is fundamentally responsible for securing work for the youth.”

Nidal Bataineh portrayed his party as one of ideas, accountability, and responsibility. Notably, he said that they would provide indicators to track his party’s progress and hold them to account. He then defined the party as center-left and in favor of social democracy, though gave many ideas of a classical liberal - private sector and individual liberty. 

Takeaway quote - “We must recognize that we are in the fifth industrial revolution, with Blockchain and Fintech on the rise. Our programs must anticipate the future. “

Policy and Ideology: Momani wins here. While the ideas are maybe expensive and far from immediate implementation, they do match the party ideology and communications. His points were clear and organized and easy for the audience to follow. In terms of ideology, Abla wins. Everything she said was in line with a strict ideological pattern. But there were no real policy ideas. The government should be in charge of employment? How do we get there from today? Bataineh may be the lowest here. Despite innovative ideas, the presentation is complicated. Twelve points? A wise man once told me, never have more points than you have fingers. 

Persuasive  Communication:  Momani also clearly won here. The party has five unshakeable pillars, the plan has three steps. The ideas are presented with clarity and logic. This is someone who understands public speaking and understands television. The worst we can say about him is that he sounds like a Minister when he speaks, and that could be triggering for the politically-wary Jordanians. On communication, Abu Elbe was the worst, constantly running out of time. 

Branding: Bataineh did a great job branding Eradah. He talked about numbers, accountability, KPIs, etc. He even had a good slogan critiquing slogans (“Don’t judge me by slogans but by performance”) Though, If I were an average voter (maybe I am?) and followed the debates to get to know the political parties I would argue that Momani was the success. He branded Mithaq as the new, largest employer - Status Quo 2.0 

2. The Education Debate

The second debate was on education. Three party leaders - Samar Dudin of the Social Democrats, Fauzan Bqour of the New Approach Party and Mustafa Al Amawi of the National Islamic Party introduced their parties and provided their view of the education problems and how to solve them. 

Samar Dudin gave some very clear ideological points, but without clarification or definition.  For most answers she defined how they are social democrats and what the left position would be - teachers should be part of the community, there needs to be a learning environment that fosters independent thinking, and the learning environment should contribute to social justice. Policies were not laid out.

Takeaway quote - “Our primary issue is social justice, which integrates with the values of freedom, solidarity, and human rights.”

Fauzan Baquor gave the most technical answers from how the Ministry approaches education challenges to details of teacher training. Frequently on television as an informed commentator, he comes off as a pundit - a well-informed expert more than a persuasive representative. 

Takeaway quote - “The party can be simply defined as a moderate, centrist Jordanian party, comprising a group of young people from the far north to the far south of the kingdom, united by a single thought and a common goal: encouraging participation in decision-making in the Jordanian state.”

Amawi was the most traditional to what Jordanian politicians present. His style is pleasant and informed but neither persuasive nor innovative. The one idea he consistently pushed was to bring back the Teachers’ Union (Or why you should vote for them and not the IAF). He discussed the party platform, but kept its details to himself. 

Takeaway quote - “The Teachers' Syndicate should be revived and activated to serve this profession and the teachers.”

Policy and Ideology. Here Baquor wins. While he was not the most persuasive in presentation, he clearly knows the details of the system and what needs to be done. He likely has a step-by-step plan to achieve it. For every question he was prepared with a specific reform and what that would mean. For ideology, Dudin is a clear winner. She blended ideological notes of social justice and social democracy into every response. However, her choice of certain terms was very niche - assuming a prior knowledge about the left’s ideological terms.  For example, her community centered approach to education as a tool for social justice is directly informed by ideological forebears like Paolo Freire and others. This was not explained as policy, but aspiration.

Persuasive  Communication. Dudin wins this one, she clearly has a public speaking style that imbues sincerity and honesty. Her style is paced and deliberate. Her background in theater clearly gives her an advantage with an audience. Amawi was all over the place, did not have message discipline, and mentioned their program like it was a mystery from Delphi. Just present it. Baqour was very technical - it was practical but not inspiring. 

Branding. Dudin also takes this one. She consistently punched out lines describing the party, how it's pro-working class, social democratic, and leftist. Everything from her outfit to her answers to her speaking style were congruent with her message. Baquour had good lines on how his members flow from the very north to the very south. He stated the party’s goal is citizen influence with government decision-making. This brand of effective leadership powered by citizen voices is very appealing to Jordanians. But it wasn’t presented as successfully as Dudin. 

The Public Sector Debate

Three party leaders - Rula Al Hroub of the Labor party, Khaeld Al-Bakkar of Taqaddum, and Zaid Naffa of Azm party discussed challenges with public sector reform. All three leaders agreed that the current reforms are moving too quickly. They all agreed though, these are reforms which need to move forward. Otherwise, the parties had stark differences. 

Rula Al Hroub of the Labor party, gave a passionate introduction which branded her party more successfully than any other party leader so far. But her opening statement was when she peaked. Rula carries the anger that many of us feel, but she doesn’t have tools to solve or fix. She has passion and anger and very big ideas - some that even contradict each other. 

Takeaway quote - “The Labor Party is the party of the oppressed, the hardworking, the poor, and the wronged. It is the party of the working class, those who work day and night to eat twice a day and struggle to pay electricity, water bills, and rent.”

Khaeld Al-Bakkar of Taqaddum, laid an interesting proposal at the beginning - grassroots democracy. His party would like to see a decentralized state with local leaders like mayors with more authority. More authority closer to the people is a bold and popular proposal. He also stressed the party’s push for more accountability, oversight and transparency. 

Takeaway quote - “We propose strengthening accountability mechanisms to ensure that public officials are held accountable for their actions. This includes introducing measures to enhance transparency and public participation in the legislative process, as well as mechanisms for regular monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of laws and regulations.”

Zaid Naffa of Azm party started with a clear description of his party as free market, pro-private sector. Naffa may be the only candidate that is tempted to pull out an Ayn Rand paperback and rest it on the podium. His presence is enigmatic - not having lived in Jordan for decades, he is perhaps the bravest by presenting a free market to Jordan voters who love their social safety net. His speaking style is halting, as if he memorized his speech and is recalling it. 

Takeaway quote - “The party has defined the economic identity of the Jordanian state and believes in economic liberalization, that is, a free-market economy.”

Policy and Ideology.  Bakkar from Taqqadum easily swept this debate (and maybe others) by blending policy with branding. This is a party of grassroots democracy fueled by common-sense and efficiency. He offers neither a revolutionary overhaul of the system nor small tweaks to the status quo but policy initiatives that can be introduced through parliament. Which is what the debates should be focusing on. 

Persuasive Communication. In the introductions, Rula takes it. The anger strikes a parallel chord with most Jordanians. The connection to average families  resonates emotionally. She speaks in visual images - no one else does. She loses that after the introduction. For the later questions, Bakkar is the most persuasive. Look at his answer on minimum wage. He provides context, explains what needs to happen, and gives the steps needed to implement it. Naffa gave a sales pitch but midway through the debate became a critique of the Taqaddum party instead of providing policy - maybe this is “trickle down” debating. 

Branding. In terms of rhetoric, Rula had a fiery opening that defined her party memorably. But for the overall takeaway, Taqqadum still appealed more. I am looking for what the parties will actually do. A list of policies tied to the brand of the party was a real selling point. Azm clearly branded itself as a free market party - but what does that mean in a Jordanian context? Who knows. 

My Take:

Before I add any critiques, I should note this is more political debate than we have seen in our political sector for some time. The debates are clearly designed to promote the idea of political parties and show the diversity of views available. However, the moderator behaves more like a debate coach than a journalist, guiding them and drawing out policy statements as if the party leaders couldn’t do it on their own. While helpful in spirit, it makes the party leaders appear weak, or at least like students. 

Also, while impossible to put all the parties on one stage, the grouping is awkward. How do they determine which parties get which topics and who will go together? Jordanians are desperately concerned with employment and the economy - only the first debate. Now, a successful politician answers the question they want, not the one they received. You can answer a question on healthcare or education or the public sector and get your points about the economy. We didn’t see much of that communication mastery though. 

So far, if there were a final debate, I would love to see Taqqadum, IAF, Mithaq, Eradah, and Social Democrats on the stage. Five leaders, five brands. Taqqadum = Grassroots Democracy. IAF = the Islamist opposition. Mithaq = Status Quo 2.0. Eradah =Smart Government. Social Democrats = Social Justice. 

As a final assessment of the three debates, I believe Momani, Dudin and Bakkar dominated the stage, each for different reasons. Momani had message discipline - very short and concise labels that are easy to remember,. However, he did oversell and his policies were more akin to campaign promises than legislative policies. 

Dudin was heartfelt but not specific or practical. She missed the opportunity to speak in visual imagery, like Rula did in her debate, but also to speak in practical policy like Momani and Bakkar. 

Bakkar is exceptional - he has a well rounded view of Jordan, he is realistic and he knows what policy is. He is not brainstorming, he is not spitting out campaign lines. Although, he is a dry speaker. Dr. Khalid is a builder. He understands legislation, he understands the local and national scene - this is a politician. 

The people who are participating in these debates are pioneers that are establishing our political party traditions that I hope we will enjoy for many more elections. That also concerns me. Do you remember a few years ago when ministers went to Ma’an, and the crowd chased them out of the room? That could be political parties in 4 years, before the next election, being chased out. That is why I am paying attention to the policies, to the big promises, and to the branding - because all of these contribute to the public perception of the entire political party sector. The party project depends on their performance in this election - or we return to apathy and cynicism. It is a tremendous responsibility. Please dont mess this up.