Prime Minister Dr. Bisher Al-Khasawneh is a wise but inexperienced man. He intends to do the right thing, but his intentions find a way into the unknown, as clearly demonstrated by the administrative reform plan presented a few days ago.
If administrative reform means dismantling some ministries, separating some institutions, or merging some of them, then this is what we have experienced in Jordan over the past four decades. During this time, we have witnessed a decline in performance, a drop in productivity, and a significant increase in government costs for taxpayers.
Each time, proposals for dismantling and restructuring came from people who were either not objective, or the issue was not thoroughly studied. This was because governments, including this one, failed to provide us with a single convincing reason why their administrative measures were justified, or explain how these arrangements served government performance, or how these unorthodox proposals align with and contribute to Vision 2033.
Administrative reform should have focused on addressing the deficit in the absorptive and cognitive capacity of departments and employees, improving their performance and ability to serve the public, enhancing their behavior, preventing corrupt individuals from addressing public issues, and encouraging outstanding individuals.
Reform should have focused on defining the basic strategic objectives of the economic vision and building administrative systems capable of achieving and accomplishing those objectives.
We had to adopt an administrative reform strategy that ensured better selection of those working in public service, set conditions for those deserving of promotion, and set clear specifications for those who hold administrative positions in government departments and ministries.
We had to ensure that the relevant institutions, ministries, and departments operated in a way that maximized their potential, without exhausting their strengths, dissipating their cohesion, or transforming them into separate, unrelated silos, creating duplication of work and endless frustration for both citizens, both individuals and institutions.
We forgot all of this and replaced it with the following:
Abolishing the Ministry of Labor and distributing its remains among ministries does not enhance the value of the achievement, but rather creates a unique contradiction. What sane person would abolish the Ministry of Labor when it has become very important to regulate the relationship between employers and workers? Instead of strengthening the ministry, which was transformed from a department within the Ministry of Social Affairs into a ministry in 1976, we have come today to abolish it, which is something unparalleled in the world. What country does not have a Ministry of Labor?
We sent the t
