The government of Jafar Hassan cannot be understood outside the context of the historical moment in which it operates. It maneuvers under the burden of a heavy legacy of previous experiences left by governments that relied for many years on managing time and procrastination rather than managing change. This behavior was not always unjustified as, in some instances, it stemmed from a desire to maintain stability or avoid the risks of rapid change. What distinguishes this government is that it treats time as a means to prepare for a quality transitional phase that is long-term and based on new foundations that can no longer be postponed.
The most significant challenge facing the government is not the nature of daily crises, as these have become part of any state's natural scene in a turbulent region. Instead, it lies in the accumulation of postponed decisions that have, over time, turned into a parallel structure of the state—decisions postponed in the name of calming, files shelved in the name of stability, and reforms frozen under the pretext of inappropriate circumstances. This legacy has created a deep gap between managing the present and the demands of the future, making any attempt at reform seem like it is hitting a thick wall of institutional and social complexity.
Jafar Hassan’s government operates in a highly sensitive space where the duty to maintain stability meets the necessity of dismantling the logic of procrastination. Time management has become a protective tool that allows for shock absorption, preventing slippage, and opening a narrow window for rebuilding the foundations of decision-making. This precise equation requires a mind that understands that rushing is dangerous, just as chronic delay is even more hazardous.
The burden is indeed significant, as the government faces not only the challenges of the present but also carries the load of addressing the effects of decisions that were not made in the past, while at the same time formulating decisions that cannot be postponed to the future. This pressure sometimes explains the slowness of some processes, but it does not justify retreating from the logic of foundational work. The difference between a government that manages time and one that manages the state lies in the ability to transform time from a temporary refuge to a strategic lever, which this government is trying to do resolutely.
The hope in the government's competencies is a cumulative awareness that overcoming the accumulations of the past can only be achieved with an administrative and political mind capable of reordering priorities and breaking the closed cycle created by policies of postponement. This hope places the government before a significant historical challenge: either to succeed in transforming time management into a cumulative reformative course or to be exhausted in the effort to correct the mistakes of the past without building a solid foundation for stepping into the future.
Deep down, everyone understands that what Jafar Hassan’s government is doing is a strenuous attempt to rebuild long-term balances. The path is not easy, and the political cost is high, but the alternative is much more dangerous. It is a government operating under a high ceiling of expectations, under the pressure of the legacy of previous experiences, and in a regionally complex environment. Fairness necessitates acknowledging that those who attempt to dismantle accumulations of decades cannot be judged by the logic of a quick solution.
Mr. President, may God give you health, for managing this burden itself is a battle of the state before it is a task of the government.
