Countercurrents: The Student Council Model in Jordanian Universities

After the wave of political reforms that Jordan witnessed in recent years, expectations related to the role of youth in public life have risen, especially with the official tendency toward restructuring the model of political and parliamentary work and strengthening the presence of young segments within the public sphere. The outputs of the Royal Committee for Modernizing the Political System came as an attempt to rebuild the relationship between the state and society by expanding the tools of political participation and rooting the concepts of party and institutional work among new generations. In this context, student councils in universities have emerged as one of the spaces that are supposed to contribute to preparing young people politically and institutionally and to form a preliminary model for interaction with the concepts of representation, election, and public work.

However, the gap between the declared reform discourse and the actual implementation within universities still raises fundamental questions about the nature and limits of this empowerment and whether the regulatory environment that governs these councils is really capable of producing real political and institutional awareness or whether it merely reproduces formal models with limited impact. Talking about empowering youth is not limited to providing electoral tools or creating representative bodies; it is related to the extent to which these spaces can give students tools for action, influence, and negotiation and allow them to understand the nature of institutional work and decision‑making mechanisms.

This article starts from reading the instructions of student councils in Jordanian universities as the framework that regulates the relationship between university administrations and student forces and tries to understand the nature of the roles that these instructions allow to be produced within the campus. It also seeks to test the extent to which these instructions are consistent with the goals that the state proposes within the political reform and youth empowerment project by analyzing the texts governing the councils and reading their practical effects rather than merely dealing with them as abstract organizational texts. The real question here is not about the existence of student councils itself, but about the nature of the role they are allowed to perform, the limits of effectiveness they possess within the university environment, and whether these councils truly form a primary school for democratic and institutional work or whether they end up producing formal structures with limited capacity and impact.

A formal structure at its core? Or is it too early to judge?

When reading the instructions that organize the work of student councils in Jordanian universities—specifically the public ones, which number ten universities[1]—and moving from a narrative reading that abbreviates the text about its effect to a reading of the effect of the text and understanding its symptoms and what lies beyond the text, it appears from the outset that there is a clear discrepancy between the declared objectives of these councils and the powers and tools that the instructions actually grant them. While these councils are presented as part of the project of political empowerment of youth, some of the organizing texts seem to limit the ability of these councils to perform their real role or confine them within narrow procedural frameworks that reduce their effectiveness and impact within the university.

This is not merely a hasty criticism of the experience or a rejection of the idea of gradual reform, for any process of political or institutional development by its nature needs sufficient time for its results to crystallize. However, the fundamental problem lies in the extent to which the instructions themselves can establish an environment that allows the accumulation of political and institutional experience among students in the first place. Gradual reform becomes logical when the organizing texts indeed build a path capable of development, not when they set limits that prevent this development from the beginning.

From here, the problem lies in the nature of the model produced by the governing instructions. Some universities still deal with these councils as organizational tools of limited function, whose roles are limited to general activities or symbolic representation, without giving them real tools to interact with student issues or influence the legislative and regulatory environment within the university. Conversely, there are limited models that have tried to open a wider margin for movement and initiative, even if only partially, allowing the building of an initial space for institutional and political practice.

Nevertheless, an important aspect of the current experience bears positive elements that deserve attention, particularly with regard to the form of the electoral process itself. The majority of universities have adopted electoral patterns that include lists, proportional representation, and women’s quotas—concepts that generally reflect modern trends in democratic practice and contribute to acquainting students with mechanisms and tools of political representation. However, the problem lies in the fact that the focus has largely been on the electoral form as a headline for reform, while the more important question remains suspended: Is developing the electoral mechanism alone sufficient to produce real political and institutional awareness?

Toward democratic building, or otherwise?

The real question arises when moving from talking about elections to talking about the actual function of these councils. The purpose of establishing student councils does not consist only of organizing elections or forming representative bodies but in creating an initial environment in which students learn the meaning of institutional work, negotiation mechanisms, the idea of political representation, and the limits of the relationship between the bases and the elected bodies. Hence, the true value of these councils is linked to their ability to perform a role that resembles—even partially—the function of representative institutions within the state, not only in form but also in substance.

In this context, the problem becomes clearer when the functions of the councils are confined to limited social, voluntary, or organizational roles with the absence of tools that allow them to truly interact with student issues or influence the regulatory environment within the university. Some instructions explicitly stipulate that the councils adopt student issues and work to achieve their interests, but at the same time they restrict this mission within the limits of existing legislation and systems without giving the council any actual authority to recommend amending these legislations, objecting to them, or proposing alternatives.

Here the fundamental contradiction emerges: How can an entity that is supposed to represent students perform its representative role when it does not have real tools to influence decisions or instructions that directly affect their interests? Suppose, for example, there is widespread student objection to a particular academic decision or to the rise in prices of services within the university; in many cases, the council does not have a clear legal framework that allows it to intervene, negotiate, or propose an actual amendment. Thus its role turns from an effective representative body into a limited symbolic framework that is content with managing activities or participating in events without possessing real tools for institutional or political work.

This pattern of organization not only leads to the weakening of the councils but indirectly reproduces a culture of exclusion and political incapacity by presenting a limited model of public participation that relies more on formal presence than on real action. Furthermore, the danger of this model does not concern the university alone but also what it instills in students about the nature of public work itself and the limits of possible influence within institutions.

It is worth noting here that most universities, in their instructions, have confined the councils to work within the university’s legislations and objectives, which is not something we reject; rather, its existence is necessary to maintain order and organized institutional conduct. However, the criticism comes from the fact that the councils’ instructions did not provide an outlet enabling this representative entity to recommend amendments to the regulations in force. This means that it is incapable of amending the instructions that govern it itself; thus, this entity does not have any authority to serve its student bases and improve the university environment in a way that satisfies the students and preserves the entity’s stability, order, and workflow. This is the crux of the matter.

In fact, by looking at the instructions of the councils of Jordanian universities, the Hashemite University has provided an outlet for the student council within the instructions, granting the council the power “to recommend to the university president the amendment that it deems appropriate to these instructions”[2]. Mutah University also includes, in Chapter Four Article (21/A), and Al-Hussein Bin Talal University, in Articles (18/Z/1) and (19/Z), similar provisions. Although this outlet is outwardly restricted to the council’s ability to recommend to the university president to amend only the instructions governing the council itself, implicitly this provision indicates enabling student actors within this council to exert pressure and demand more and to maneuver within the limits of the existing legislation. This is what we need, even if the student actors in their entirety do not yet understand how processes of pressure and political maneuvering occur and how to exploit legal opportunities. However, the existence of this outlet in the instructions provides an open space for a coming student force capable of seizing the opportunity and increasing the entity’s weight on the scene.

These provisions found in the councils’ instructions of the aforementioned universities are somewhat in line with the recommendations of reform and do not constitute a countercurrent that stifles students’ energies or contradicts what the state seeks in empowering youth; rather, they support the cornerstone, even if only minimally.

Constructive institutional work

This leads us to question the nature of the institutional work that these councils establish: Are we in front of a model that truly contributes to building democratic practice within the university, or in front of a limited organizational framework that does not possess the tools for producing genuine institutional work? Although the councils’ instructions state, in their objectives, the strengthening of democratic principles and the rooting of institutional work, reading the texts in depth reveals a clear gap between the organizational discourse and the actual tools available to these councils.

This problem is particularly manifested in the issue of the internal bylaws of the student councils. While institutional work assumes the existence of procedural and organizational rules produced by the representative bodies themselves, the majority of the instructions do not grant the councils the authority to establish their own internal bylaws or to propose amendments that organize their mechanisms of work independently. Thus, the councils become fully subject to a ready-made organizational framework without having tools to develop or re-formulate it.

In a clarifying comparison, one can rely on Article (83) of the Jordanian Constitution, which explicitly stipulates the National Assembly’s right to set its internal regulations, considering that an essential foundation related to consolidating institutional work and organizing parliamentary procedures. From this perspective, the absence of a similar space within the student councils indicates the limited institutional environment within which they operate.

However, some university models appear that have tried to open a limited margin for movement, such as the Hashemite University, Mutah University, and Al-Hussein Bin Talal University, by granting the councils the authority to recommend amending the instructions governing them. Although this right remains limited in scope and impact, it opens an initial space for initiative and negotiation and grants students— even if only partially—the ability to participate in developing the organizational framework that governs their work.

The model of the German Jordanian University also stands out, as its instructions stipulate that members of the student parliament agree to set the foundations of the internal regulations and approve them according to established procedures—a step that reflects a relative awareness of the importance of involving students in organizing the mechanisms of their institutional work. However, these spaces remain limited compared to the magnitude of the role these councils are supposed to play within the university environment.

In contrast, the majority of universities still lack any actual space that allows the councils to maneuver, negotiate, or exert real influence in their organizational environment, which keeps these councils within the limits of a formal role rather than being student institutions capable of producing truly representative action. We also note, within the applicable instructions, that the finances of the councils are funded under several items, including what the university allocates from its annual budget to the student council as follows:

It should be noted that instructions that do not clearly specify a fixed financial ceiling or an accurate mechanism for allocating the budgets of student councils pose a problem related to the principles of governance and institutional transparency. The absence of clarity in determining financial resources not only affects administrative aspects but also reflects on the councils’ ability to plan and build stable and sustainable work strategies.

This problem becomes more complicated when taking into account the short-term nature of membership in student councils, as most instructions stipulate that the membership term is only one year, with the possibility that the members of the council change almost completely in each election cycle. This means that accumulated experiences do not transfer in an institutionally stable manner; instead, new councils often start from a recurring founding point. This weakens their ability to plan for the long term and creates a state of hesitation and slowness in managing resources and building priorities.

From here, betting on the accumulation of personal experience of the members as an alternative to the clarity of the financial and organizational structure remains an impractical assumption, especially in the absence of fixed rules that can be built upon or predicted. Effective institutional management is based primarily on the clarity of resources and their relative stability, as planning becomes more difficult whenever the ability to measure or anticipate the available capacities is absent.

Likewise, the absence of defined financial ceilings within some instructions opens the way for potential disparities in allocation mechanisms from year to year, depending on various administrative or institutional factors, which raises questions related to the fairness of distribution and the stability of support allocated to these councils.

This discussion comes within the framework of talking about constructive institutional work, considering that one of the most important conditions for building any institutional model is the ability of the entity to manage itself within clear, stable, and agreed-upon rules. Student councils cannot transform into effective institutions unless they possess space that allows them to participate in organizing their administrative and financial environment within a legal framework that preserves the university’s stability and at the same time enhances the role of students in managing their representative affairs more maturely and institutionally.

From this angle, universities that have granted the councils space to recommend amending the instructions are more capable of establishing an institutional environment capable of development, even if these spaces are not entirely sufficient, because they open the way for the accumulation of negotiating and organizational experience among student forces, rather than keeping them within rigid frameworks with limited impact.

Conclusion

This article came as a result of an objective reading of the instructions that organize the work of the councils in the universities and the intersection of these instructions with the essence of the reform process that the state and society are laying down in order to elevate the coming generation of youth and enable them to understand how the scene is managed, so that they are ready to become among the influential elites in Jordanian society and active persons who have a vision of what is happening and what should be done. The criticism in this article comes in the service of the minds of the student forces and guidance for those among them who do not know, about the details of these instructions, to invest what is in their hands in order to serve themselves and their student bases, and also in order to put the finger on the points of defect and recommend correcting what could extinguish the energies of youth or direct them toward the wrong path, in order to preserve Jordan and serve the beloved homeland.

Sources and References

The Jordanian Constitution, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

The University of Jordan – Legal Affairs Department.

Yarmouk University – Legal Affairs Department.

Regulations of the Student Union of Mutah University.

Regulations of the Student Union of the Jordan University of Science and Technology.

Regulations of the Student Council at the Hashemite University.

Legal Affairs Department – Al al‑Bayt University.

Regulations of the Student Parliament at the German Jordanian University (p. 435).

Al‑Hussein Bin Talal University.

The Universities Law of Jordan.

[1] Except for Al-Balqa Applied University and Tafila Technical University, due to the instructions not yet being available on their websites.

[2] See: Chapter Four, Council Meetings and Powers, Article (8/D).