Khaberni - Out of 271 deputy proposals that were presented during the discussion of the Education and Human Resource Development Law for the year 2026, only one proposal succeeded in getting approved, a rate that does not exceed 0.5%, which is a notable indicator of the limited legislative impact of the discussions under the dome.
This came through a report issued by Al-Hayat Center – Observer on the discussions of the House of Representatives concerning the Education and Human Resource Development Law for the year 2026, which revealed a clear gap between the intensity of parliamentary discussions under the dome and the actual impact of these discussions on legislation, marking one of the most significant legislative moments related to the future of education in Jordan.
According to the report, the House of Representatives discussed the bill over four consecutive working days, totaling 12 hours and 42 minutes, witnessing 269 parliamentary interventions made by 86 deputies, among them 251 interventions directly linked to the agenda, while the rate of interventions outside the agenda was 6.32%.
The report indicated that 197 out of the 269 interventions were classified as containing proposals, against 39 interventions that were merely general interventions, and 11 procedural matters, and 5 breaches, and 17 interventions outside the agenda, showing that the numerical participation did not necessarily reflect the quality or effectiveness of the discussions.
The report pointed out that the parliamentary discussion was characterized by high quantitative volume against a clear quality weakness, with the rate of general or repetitive interventions being 97.4%, against only 2.6% of quality or crucial interventions, reflecting that the majority of the discussions did not convert into in-depth legislative analysis or viable proposals.
Regarding the actual impact on the text, the report showed that the number of proposals raised through interventions amounted to 202, while the number of proposals subjected to voting reached 271, of which only one succeeded, reflecting the limited legislative impact of the overall discussions despite their numerical intensity and temporal expansion, and that this weakness in legislative impact is not only linked to the nature of the discussion or its content but also reflects the challenges related to the level of coordination among members of parliamentary blocs, in addition to variations within the same bloc in some cases, as understood from the lack of prior consensus on proposals, or weak construction of organized collective positions, which contributed to reducing the chances of passing amendments, despite the numerical density of the parliamentary presentations and the broad participation under the dome.
The analysis also showed that the discussion was unbalanced in terms of time distribution, with the first article taking up 3 hours, 21 minutes, and 25 seconds, and the second article taking two hours, 29 minutes, and 20 seconds, totaling about 46% of the total discussion time, indicating a focus on the beginnings of the law before the pace of approval accelerated for the subsequent articles, where 27 articles were approved within the last two working days.
In the same context, the first article recorded the highest number of speakers at 60 speakers, followed by the second article with 51 speakers, then the fourth article with 36 speakers, and the third article with 30 speakers, and the ninth article with 24 speakers, reflecting that the major part of the parliamentary debate was concentrated in a limited number of articles, while other articles passed quickly and without significant debate.
According to the report, the second article topped the number of proposals raised through interventions with 39 proposals, followed by the first article with 36 proposals, then the fourth article with 29 proposals, and the ninth article with 24 proposals, and the third article with 23 proposals. As for the number of proposals subjected to voting, the ninth article came first with 47 proposals, followed by the fourth article with 40 proposals, and then the second article with 36 proposals.
In a general assessment, the report classified the quality of the legislative discussion as "medium to weak," where it scored 5.2 out of 10 based on metrics grounded in international standards (OECD and IPU), with variability among different themes where the text relevance was rated average (5/10), the evidence-based index was weak (4/10), legal consistency was good (7-8/10), while the impact on the text was very weak at (1/10), and parliamentary discipline was rated as medium (5/10).
The report also highlighted that the discussion under the dome was not purely legislative but notably intertwined with political and national discourse, where some interventions addressed issues beyond the scope of the law, such as regional situations, the role of the army and security agencies, prices, and some local issues, leading to a broadening of the discussion beyond the technical legislative framework.
In this context, the Observer noted that the discussion often tended towards being a platform for political speech and public expression more than a legislative process based on scrutiny, analysis, and amendment, which directly reflected on the limited modifications introduced to the text.
Despite this, the report noted some strengths, notably the presence of advanced legal interventions addressing important constitutional issues, such as the unconstitutionality of immunizing certain decisions from judicial challenge, alongside technical proposals related to definitions and drafting, although these presentations, according to the report, remained limited in impact and did not reflect on the final text of the law.
Regarding time management within the sessions, the analysis showed that 76.58% of parliamentary interventions were presented within the time limit set at three minutes, reflecting a high level of compliance with the procedural regulations of the sessions, which is credited to the leadership of the council and the deputies in controlling the rhythm of the discussion and maintaining its course within the specified time frames, despite the large numerical density of interventions (269 interventions).
The report further showed that one of the most significant factors affecting the quality of the discussion was the mechanism of time distribution over the working days, where the expansion of the discussion during the early days created pressure in the later days, prompting the council to move from open debate to quick approval under time pressure, reflecting a decrease in the quality of the discussion in the final stages.
The report concluded that despite the debate on the Education and Human Resources Development Law and its importance as a sovereign law affecting human capital, it reflected a state of high political vitality against limited legislative effectiveness, indicating that the debate was closer to a "political mobilizing discussion" than a "professional legislative discussion based on evidence and impact."
Observer emphasized that these results are not only consistent with this law but reflect a broader institutional challenge within Jordan's legislative system, evident in the absence of impact analysis tools, weak research support, and limited impact of parliamentary discussion on the final texts.
In light of these results, the Al-Hayat Center – Observer called on the House of Representatives to review the management mechanisms of legislative discussions under the dome, ensuring enhanced technical and legal nature of discussions, and limiting the effect of political polarizations that may weaken the quality of legislative outputs. Observer also stressed the importance of enabling parliamentary blocs to play a more effective role in organizing and directing discussions, through coordinating their positions and building prior consensus on proposals, thereby enhancing their impact on the final texts of the laws.
In this context, Observer emphasized the necessity of holding prior coordination meetings for parliamentary blocs before discussing the laws, particularly the Insurance Law project, which would contribute to shifting from general debates to quality interventions based on analysis and specialization, thus enhancing the legislative role of the council, and transforming the discussion under the dome into a genuine tool for formulating public policies based on impact.
