When it concerns a law that affects the lives of millions of citizens and extends its impact for decades, the question is not whether we should amend it, but how, why, and by what legislative method. Social security is not a mere technical text, but a long-term commitment founded on stability, trust, and clarity.
Looking at the course of the social security law in Jordan, one may notice that this law has not had the stability that should accompany social protection laws.
Since its issuance, it has been subjected to substantial legislative amendments at least five official times, in addition to frequent minor amendments - a number that raises a legitimate question about the logic of continual modification in a law that should remain as constant as possible.
These modifications were not superficial; they touched upon retirement conditions, duration of contributions, and entitlement mechanisms, making many participants feel that the rules upon which they based their professional and livelihood decisions were no longer stable. A citizen does not change his course every few years, whereas the law supposed to regulate his future does.
In the amended law project proposed for 2026, the problem does not lie in a specific provision, but in the continuation of the same approach: a new amendment without sufficient public evaluation of the impact of previous amendments, and without extensive national discussion to assure participants that this path indeed leads to better protection and not to more ambiguity.
In comparative experiences, social security laws are among the most stable because they affect people's lives in the long term. When they are amended, it is an exception built on broad consensus, not a recurring rule imposed by financial necessity alone.
What increases concern is that these amendments are proposed under challenging economic conditions and rising living costs, making any change in retirement terms or entitlement a naturally sensitive issue. The principle here is not haste, but consideration, and not only justifying reasons but also explaining the real impact on participants' lives.
The problem is not in the intentions of reform, but in the way it is managed. Financial sustainability is a legitimate goal, but it is not achieved only by calculations but also by rule stability and trust-building. A law that is continually amended, even with good intentions, loses its function as a source of reassurance.
Therefore, proper legislative logic requires pausing at this project in its current form and opening a real discussion about it, revisiting the course of previous amendments and their outcomes before adding a new modification to a long record of changes.
Social security today does not need another amendment as much as it needs legislative stability to restore participants' confidence that this law exists to protect their future, not to keep them in a perpetual state of anticipation.
