In light of rumors about the government's intention to amend the local administration law in a way that separates the technical administration of the municipality from the elected administration, through appointing a municipal manager with broad powers at the expense of reducing the powers of the mayor and elected members, serious questions arise about the path the state is taking in the file of decentralization and democracy
If what has been leaked about the draft law orientations is true, it does not seem to be an attempt to reform the decentralization experience, but a mechanism to circumvent dissatisfaction with the results of local elections, reflecting the public mood despite weaknesses or imbalances in performance or competence in some cases.
Resorting to reducing the powers of the elected councils under the pretext of weak performance, without addressing the root causes, is a step back from the essence of democracy, and opens the door to what can be described as "formal democracy" or "fake" that is evident in voting boxes without a real impact in local decision-making.
The weak performance of some municipalities is not due to the principle of elections per se, but to known factors such as:
• Absence of strict legal controls on the council's work.
• Lack of clear criteria for candidacy, which led to the emergence of some unqualified individuals.
• Weak enforcement of the law by regulatory and executive bodies.
• Failure of parallel executive administrations within municipalities.
Therefore, addressing the problem does not involve abolishing or restricting democracy, but by reforming its environment, clearly defining powers, and activating tools of oversight and accountability.
If the executive administration (appointed manager) is separated from the elected administration (president and council), we are faced with an administrative experience threatened with conflict from the first moment.
• Who sets project priorities?
• Who communicates with government entities?
• Who guides the technical and administrative staff in the municipality?
• Who is accountable to whom?
The ambiguity or duplicity in answers will lead to a power struggle that consumes time and hinders development instead of achieving administrative harmony.
If the state believes that the most suitable solution is to abolish local elections and replace them fully with appointments, it should declare that openly, rather than keeping ceremonial elections for councils with nominal powers. The Jordanian citizen is too smart to be deceived by a ballot box that does not result in real authority.
Finally
Amending the law towards appointing the manager and restricting the elected represents a real danger to the course of public participation and political reform in Jordan, and takes us back to the centrality of decision rather than empowering local communities.
Reform is not achieved by canceling democracy but by developing its tools, improving its conditions, and ensuring its effectiveness
