Local Elections Postponed: Closing another Door

Last week the Jordanian government announced its decision to postpone local municipal elections for at least another six months. This decision comes after the government dissolved municipal and governorate councils back in July 2025 saying it was part of the local administration reform review.

For those that don’t know, changing the Election Law and the Local Administration law are two favorite tennis games of our politics. There is always review and discussion and a new update. Decentralization has become the ‘white whale’ in our political version of Moby Dick.

So, this is a continuation and not unexpected. But the government is effectively asking citizens to accept a centrally appointed interim government, without providing a clear timeline or framework on the decentralization process (“I think I saw the decentralization whale in the distance Captain!”)

This postponement is not illegal. But it comes at a very politically challenging time. Jordan launched an ambitious political modernization with a goal of including citizens and bolstering our political identity. But local government is the face of government we see the most. It is also the part of government that affects our identity the most - our community.

So, why is this important and how does postponing local reform actually affect Jordan’s risk profile?

Three things you should know

1) A pressure cooker

I’ve written about social shock absorbers before. This is primarily the role of local elections. This is when people can discuss the local budget priorities, how the community will change, and if their lives will be better off. Local governance is where local livelihood grievances should be addressed. The open door policies of mayors is vital. While we usually never meet our Member of parliament, we can march down to our municipal office and walk right in. It’s very approachable. This is where citizens can practice direct democracy, interact with the state and feel heard and represented. These local bodies function as buffers, they take in the shocks and anger over services, permits, local priorities (and grievances over services which they don’t even control). When they are gone these anger does not vanish, it simply festers.

Jordan’s economic baseline is already under pressure; The labor market is still dealing with high unemployment, especially among youth with the Central Bank reporting at 54.4% (ages 15-19) and 47.9% (ages 20-24). It also reported a 1.86% increase in CPI, while the increase is not high in the abstract, when it’s in the Jordanian context of a low-wage country this number becomes very politically loud. True, mayors and municipal councilors aren’t responsible for national employment or our investment climate. But (actually) they have a lot of freedom in issuing permits and licensing. How they issue business licenses affects the local economy, and the number of construction permits they issue affects the feel and economy of the local market. Also, obviously, all these unemployed youth live in a municipality. The local services and jobs are the first they see.

These economic realities, merge with other daily disappointments, anger over complex bureaucracy, unmet needs, and sometimes poor service delivery. But local government officials are the “first responders” for any crisis (In a sharp example, they literally were first responders during the COVID pandemic, implementing the new rules, managing the government on a greatly diminished team, and educating their citizens). These officials can meet citizens, engage and absorb all this frustration and listen. So, postponement becomes a legitimacy gap not a technical one.

2) The Youth Message

Youth grievances in Jordan are not just about unemployment numbers. This is the lived experience this unemployment creates, Waithood (Not my term but I have used it several times in previous newsletters). These youth live a delayed adulthood, with delayed dignity, and delayed influence. Research shows they feel isolated from Parliament and the national government, and the government official they most often encounter is in their municipality. Now, they can’t even engage that nearest layer of the state because their participation has been postponed. By postponing local elections so long and filling local offices with appointees that are unaccountable to voters, the government is unintentionally deepening a belief that politics is a closed club, centrally managed, and is justified only after the fact.

But even if elections disappear, youth grievances do not. They simply find other homes and other outlets. .

We already see it on social media politics, political boycotts, and street eruptions tied to regional events with a deep impact domestically. But these are not “alternatives” to politics, they are just politics. They are housed elsewhere outside of formal institutions.

There is real anger for understandable reasons. Institutions are the shock absorbers for that anger. Yes, those institutions focus on efficiency, but they survive because of trust. When you repeatedly show young people that elections do not happen on time, that laws shift on political whims, then you’re only normalizing disappointment. Expectations go lower and lower. Disappointment hardens into cynicism which then hardens into exit. Why vote? Why follow the news? Why join a party? ( and often, why pay taxes?)

3) A False and Dangerous Binary:

Ironically, these appointed local councils and mayors are very efficient. Garbage collection is improving. Infrastructure is getting repaired. In a way, it is an anti-democratic success story, but by getting rid of elections, professionals can focus on getting work done. But this is a false and dangerous binary. Appointed councils are “efficient,” and elected councils are somehow a liability or at least slower. So they are not only postponing elections, but sending a message to citizens that they were the reason things were slower.

I know, it’s bizarre to criticize efficient governance. But an elected mayor and council answer to the people who put them there. The community is their boss. An appointed one answers upward to Amman. This changes the dynamic from representation to compliance. Solving local issues is not the goal but implementing goals from the Ministry. Now, what happens when the efficiency goes away? Well, an elected mayor is voted out. But for an appointed local leader, there is no local accountability, no local political cost. So does local opinion matter?

Let’s say an angry youth population sees that their appointed local government is inefficient. Who are they angry with? The local officials who have no control over? Or Amman, which appointed that official? The anger remains but finds a new target. It travels upward into Parliament, into the ministries, into the center, suddenly making a local service failure a national legitimacy issue.

My Take:

Nothing about postponing the most local layer of representation in a country with low-wages, and high-frustration is neutral. Postponement is a political act. The decision not to decentralize is political. The decision not to extend the political modernizations to the local level, is political.

Municipalities and local councils are more than just a democratic or constitutional right, they are an arena for containing anger in the smallest, most boring, but resolvable ways. Got a problem with trash collection? A permit delay? Local roads need fixing? Concerned with how the local budget is spent? Want new street lighting for safety? A safe play space for children? Imagine not being able to advocate for those.

Now, you may dismiss this. “Local government doesn’t have that much power, to be honest.” First, why not? More powerful local offices mean citizens have more influence. Second, as I wrote, the local government is a shock absorber for citizen concerns.

“OK, but we have a lot bigger problems than garbage and street lights” First, local problems affect people’s families. What is a bigger priority for you? Your children or national investment climate? Second, of course we have large national problems. But problems compound. Local governments can solve those local problems and prevent them from merging into national ones.

The state needs to understand that you cannot eliminate risk by centralizing accountability. On the contrary, you magnify it. Especially when the environment you’re operating in is riddled with high youth unemployment, economy is politically loud but “manageable” on paper, you’ll need local buffers that release some of the pressure, instead of postponing

Decentralization will be messy. Citizen engagement is messy. Have you ever been to a Town Hall where citizens directly complain to the mayor? Not pretty. But it is an outlet for citizen concerns and often can lead to a resolution. Political parties are messy at the moment, but introducing them into local elections will provide more vehicles for representation. Elected mayors and local councils may end up being less efficient than appointed ones, but accountability will lie with the citizens and that will increase engagement and build trust.

So the question is not “can we postpone?” The question is “what are we building in the meantime?” If there is no law, no timeline, no clear transfer of authority and resources, then postponement is not a bridge to decentralization but a continuation of a negative cycle. 1) reform rhetoric, 2) centralized decision-making, 3) citizens left out. When trust in institutions plummets, should we be surprised?