Politics and Society Institute Report: Third Cabinet Reshuffle Reveals Trust and Communication Gap Between the Government and the Public
- Report: Negative sentiment accounted for 87.2% of engagement on news platforms, compared with 0% on official pages.
- Report: Engagement on official pages was dominated by congratulatory messages and expressions of support. This did not necessarily indicate public approval of the reshuffle, as the substantive debate shifted to news platforms on social media.
- Report: Online discourse framed the cabinet reshuffle as a “recycling” of existing figures rather than genuine change, since no new names entered the government.
- Report: Calls for greater youth representation reflected broader discontent with the recurrence of familiar figures and the difficulty new individuals face in reaching decision-making positions.
- Report: Increasing the number of deputy prime ministers to three raised questions about the added value of the new positions and their cost to public finances.
- Report: The Royal Hashemite Court’s post generated approximately 1,200 engagements during the first two hours and reached around 103,000 users.
- Report: The discussion peaked during the first hours following the announcement and then declined rapidly, without developing into sustained public scrutiny.
- Report: Although the government issued an explanatory statement one day before the reshuffle, it failed to reach the digital spaces in which public attitudes were being formed, revealing a gap in the effectiveness of government communication.
A digital report issued by the Politics and Society Institute, titled Another Cabinet Reshuffle? Digital Monitoring of Jordanians’ Reactions to the Third Cabinet Reshuffle and prepared by researcher Rand Azm, found that the latest cabinet reshuffle was not widely perceived as a genuine change in the government team. Instead, it was viewed as a recycling of familiar figures and positions. This perception triggered extensive negative engagement on news platforms, in sharp contrast to the celebratory tone prevailing on official pages.
The report monitored Jordanians’ online reactions to the reshuffle announced on 11 August 2026. It found that 87.2% of engagement on independent news platforms expressed negative sentiment, while official pages recorded no negative engagement and were dominated by congratulatory messages and expressions of support. According to the report, this divergence reflects the different characteristics of digital spaces and the ways users interact within them, rather than a genuine division in public opinion.
The report stresses that positive engagement on official pages should not be interpreted as evidence of broad public approval. Users largely confined their activity there to reactions and shares, while the substantive debate moved to news pages, where they articulated their positions, raised questions, and expressed criticism.
The Royal Hashemite Court’s post on the reshuffle generated approximately 1,200 engagements during its first two hours, comprising 979 reactions, 161 shares, and 98 comments. It reached around 103,000 users. The report notes, however, that this level of engagement was short-lived: the wave declined rapidly and had largely subsided within a single day. This pattern points to an immediate but brief discussion that did not develop into sustained public scrutiny.
Online criticism centred on the perception that the reshuffle amounted to a “recycling” of existing figures rather than genuine change, particularly because those affected were already members of the government. Calls for greater youth representation in decision-making positions also emerged as an expression of broader dissatisfaction with the recurrence of familiar figures and the barriers preventing new individuals from reaching positions of responsibility.
The increase in the number of deputy prime ministers also prompted questions about the rationale for these positions, their added value, and their cost to public finances. Social media users called for a clearer explanation of the reasoning behind the decision and the outcomes it was expected to deliver.
The report identifies a central paradox: one day before the reshuffle, the government had issued a statement explaining that the decision was required to meet a constitutional obligation arising from the merger of the Ministry of Education with the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, and that no new ministers would join the government. Yet this explanation failed to reach the influential digital discussion, which formed around the text of the Royal Decree alone, allowing sceptical and sarcastic interpretations to spread.
The report concludes that the core problem lies in the government’s limited ability to reach the intended audience at the right time. When an explanation is communicated through a channel separate from the one in which public debate is unfolding, the official message remains detached from the space where public attitudes are formed.
The report recommends that government announcements include direct explanations of the rationale behind decisions, the responsibilities attached to newly created positions, and their expected outcomes. It also calls for systematic monitoring of independent and news platforms as the principal spaces in which public debate takes shape. In addition, it recommends establishing channels through which citizens can submit proposals and participate in policymaking, expanding their role beyond expressions of dissatisfaction.