Khaberni - Commentators and observers of parliamentary affairs have focused on the consensus method for selecting Mazen Al-Qadi as a consensus candidate among the main blocs in the House of Representatives; personally, I see nothing wrong with that, and the parliamentary milieu is an extension of Jordanian folklore.
What was not mentioned in the discussions about the elections for the Speaker of the House of Representatives was the topic of "endorsement".
In the internal system of the House of Representatives, the word "endorsement" isn’t mentioned; Article 14 of the internal system specifies who the winning candidate in the elections is.
What happens in the case of having only one candidate for the presidency of the council, since the internal system does not explicitly state that: in case there is only one candidate for the position of President, he is declared the winner by endorsement?
The transparent democratic procedure in this case is to hold a vote on the candidate and count the number of votes he receives, and if he does not achieve a majority of more than half, the nomination is reopened; and if only the same candidate is nominated again, he is declared the winner by endorsement.
What does this procedure signify?
The most important significance is to gauge the acceptance of the candidate by the members of the House of Representatives and to document which parliamentary blocs supported his nomination or abstained from supporting it, a political matter with implications that need to be shown and documented. This procedure is stipulated in many internal systems of Houses of Representatives.
For example, in the British House of Commons, despite the candidate for the speakership being agreed upon among the parties, and despite him resigning from his party and ensuring his victory in the next parliamentary elections by not facing any competitors in his constituency, he is still subject to voting by the members of the House of Commons to officially secure his victory democratically.
The other issue that needs to be discussed is the overstepping of the roles of the Speakers of Houses of Representatives as defined by the internal system of the House of Representatives, which limits their role in the general assembly sessions of the council to only applying the internal system and the constitution, and prohibits them from responding to members of parliament or expressing an opinion. Their role is like that of a soccer match referee, applying the rules without participating in the game. And if the president decides to express an opinion on a matter, he must vacate the chair of the presidency.
