Radical change in government operations is not achieved impulsively or through slogans, but through rational decisions based on new tools and tested experiences. The countries that have succeeded in transitioning from deep economic and administrative crises to paths of stability and growth were no less complex than the Jordanian case, but they possessed calculated courage, the ability to learn from others, and readiness to redefine the role of the state and its tools. The fundamental question here is not whether change is possible, but how it can be achieved without gambling with the state's resources.
Global experiences show that the starting point for any real change lies in the clarity of the government's function. In Singapore, success was not the result of the state expanding into all sectors, but the fruit of its strict focus on building high-efficiency institutions, setting clear rules, and strict enforcement of the law, while allowing the real economy to drive growth. The lesson here is that a strong state is not an inflated state, but one that knows where to intervene and where to withdraw.
On the level of governance tools, Estonia's experience offers a model for how modernizing tools can change the nature of the state itself. Digital transformation was not just a technical project as much as it was a political decision to redesign the relationship between the citizen and the government, reduce bureaucracy, increase transparency, and speed up decision-making. This change did not require grand speeches, but needed a data structure, performance indicators, and the ability to make quick, reviewable decisions.
In the economic field, Germany's experience confirms that building a cohesive economy is not achieved through emergency solutions, but through long-term investment in industry, value chains, and directly linking education and vocational training to market needs. This model shows that addressing unemployment is not done through government employment or temporary support, but by building a production system that rewards skill, discipline, and continuity.
When moving to sovereign issues, with water at the forefront, Australia's experience emerges as a practical model for managing scarcity with a strategic mindset. Australia faced severe droughts that threatened agriculture and major cities, but dealt with the issue as a long-term national security matter, investing in water desalination, reuse, and demand management, and took early unpopular decisions. The result was not only overcoming the crisis but building a more flexible and resilient water system. The clear lesson here is that the cost of a difficult early decision is much lower than the cost of delay.
However, any economic or administrative reform loses its legitimacy if it is not managed socially with justice. In the Scandinavian experience, specifically in Sweden, deep and relatively painful reforms were passed, but within a clear social contract based on transparency, equal opportunities, and the state starting with itself before asking society for sacrifices. The reform, in this context, was not shocking because it was understood and fair.
In the Jordanian case, these combined experiences indicate that the government does not need innovative policies as much as it needs new governance tools. Tools that are based on clear decision-making, linking responsibility to results, publicly measuring performance, and making quick, correctable decisions. Significant change does not mean breaking the system, but modernizing it from within, changing its rhythm, and the logic of its operation.
What was raised in the last speech by Prime Minister Jafar Hassan reflects an understanding of the nature of this stage, but international experiences show that the difference between countries that succeed and those that falter does not lie in the quality of the diagnosis, but in the ability to transform the vision into a different, stricter, clearer accountability, and faster response execution system.
The conclusion is that real change does not need an uncalculated adventure, but it also does not tolerate caution that paralyzes decision-making. Between impulsiveness and stagnation, there is a wide space for strategic rational action, benefiting from others' experiences, and forging its own path confidently. There, only, can the state make significant change… without hesitation, and without recklessness.
Hani Al-Dumur
