While Dr. Jaafar Hassan and his government are taking measures to control government spending and restructure financial benefits, an important question arises: Can the House of Representatives adopt a similar approach, or does the nature and mechanisms of the parliament make it less able to move in this direction?
اضافة اعلان
In light of the declining public trust in the legislative institution and increasing pressures to reform the benefits system, the stance of the parliament on these policies becomes a real test of its seriousness in taking on its responsibilities before public opinion.
The article begins with the question: Why should MPs practice austerity?
In fact, there has been a general sense in the street for many years that MPs enjoy unjustified privileges, whether in terms of salaries, travel, or appointments, which strengthens public demands to reduce these privileges.
Citizens also feel that there is a need for a parliamentary consensus with the government's approach, as the government is asking citizens to practice austerity and bear the burdens of economic reforms. Therefore, it is illogical for MPs to continue in an unjustifiable pattern of spending.
Additionally, MPs are facing an increasing legitimacy crisis, as they are seen as disconnected from the concerns of the street, and adopting austerity policies may be an attempt to improve their image in the eyes of the public.
If we look at those financial privileges that the Speaker of the House, Ahmad Safadi, and the permanent office could reduce for MPs, we would find them in several areas, such as travel allowances and accompanying persons. This is a step that the House should take, following the government's approach to limiting MPs' travel at the state's expense or imposing restrictions on the number of companions allowed during official trips.
This measure would show a commitment to the austerity approach, especially if it coincided with clear criteria about the necessity of travel and the benefits it brings to Jordan.
However, the sensitive and difficult decision that may be hard for any parliamentary leadership or member to make, due to its controversial nature, is reducing salaries and bonuses. This decision will undoubtedly face strong rejection, no matter how much pressure is applied on the parliament to make any symbolic concessions, such as appointments within the parliament linked to its budget or bonuses and other privileges tied to sessions and meetings. Such decisions, if taken, could enhance the credibility of MPs in adopting the desired reforms.
On the other hand, despite the validity and importance of this austerity approach in increasing trust between the public and MPs and reducing the gap between them, it will face challenges and internal resistance from the MPs themselves, as some rely on these privileges to ensure public support in their electoral districts.
Some MPs may see that reducing these privileges will weaken their political influence, especially in an electoral system that depends on personal and service-oriented relationships. They also consider the privileges they receive as "compensation" for the lack of official financial support for their election campaigns, making them less accepting of the idea of giving them up.
From a theoretical perspective, Speaker Ahmad Safadi can adopt an austerity policy and follow in the footsteps of the Hassan government, but in practice, there are political and structural obstacles that may prevent success in implementing austerity policies within the parliament. Therefore, it requires continuous public pressure and political leadership within the parliament that believes in the necessity of this step. The parliament is in desperate need of increasing trust and bridging the gap between itself and the public.
