As usual, I followed the last episode of the distinguished program (Friendly Fire), which was titled The Ministers: Who Stays and Who Leaves All Indicators, and the honored guest was Dr. Amer Bani Amer, the director of the Al-Hayat Center for Civil Society Development..
In the essence of the nature of the questions and the answers to them, the guest did not provide just conventional answers?! Instead, he tried to reflect a common pattern in contemporary Arab political discourse! A pattern based on balancing the acknowledgment of crises and justifying their continuity. It can be said that what distinguished the guest's answers was his reliance on dual discourse; on one hand, he acknowledges the existence of a structural flaw in the political reality from his perspective, and on the other hand, he worked to justify this flaw as an inevitable result of internal and external complications.
One of the first substantial observations I reached is that the guest deliberately avoided presenting clear practical solutions despite acknowledging the depth of the crisis. This pattern of response reflects what can be termed 'defensive realism', where the problem is described with relatively acceptable accuracy... but without attempting to propose real alternatives. Here, the analysis transforms into a tool to absorb criticism rather than a gateway for reform.
The guest also resorted to attributing the lion's share of responsibility to external factors, whether it be international pressures or regional balances. This approach, as I see it, is not entirely wrong?! However, it becomes problematic when used to minimize the responsibility and role of the internal actor!! The frequent shifting of blame to external factors (a type of appeasement) may turn into a permanent excuse that exonerates local forces from accountability.
From another angle, it was clear in the guest's answers a noticeable tendency to reproduce the managing crisis discourse instead of solving it, and it seems that the guest may have been influenced by some recent American proposals in adopting crisis management policies instead of solving them (although I discovered that American politicians in any Republican or Democratic administration have gone far in now adopting a policy of managing failure, not just crises as they do in Iraq today??!! In his tactics and maneuvers, the guest speaks of containing challenges and adapting to reality and dealing with what is possible without proposing a vision that aids in radically changing this reality. This reflects a deeper crisis in political thinking where reformist ambition is replaced by the logic of survival and continuation, although this context has become very common in the policies of many countries' experiences ?!
It is also noteworthy that the guest did not delve deeply and sufficiently into the role of the popular will or society in making change (knowing that society in Jordan is politically aware and actively positive) and tried to show that the political process is exclusively for the elites alone. This neglect reflects a gap between political discourse and social reality and raises questions about the extent of these elites' belief in the ability of the people to influence.
Ultimately, it can be said that Dr. Amer Bani Amer's answers have a diplomatic dimension that reflects a political discourse that has become familiar, a type of discourse that acknowledges the crisis without venturing to dismantle its real causes, justifying reality instead of transcending it. It is a discourse that tries to appear rational and realistic but in depth, it perpetuates a state of stagnation.
Here lies the problem in the guest's answer tactics when the analysis emphasized by Dr. Hani in his questions becomes a cover for continuing as is, not a tool for change!! Thus, it can be said here that the approach to politics that Jordan wants from its officials loses its meaning as a desired and directed reformative act by His Majesty the King, the Prime Minister, and the people, and turns into mere ongoing crisis management.
