Will Bishr Al-Khasawneh Conduct the Upcoming Parliamentary Elections?
Executive Summary
- Although the matter of the parliamentary elections has been definitively settled, with September 10th designated as the date for holding them, there remains a significant unresolved issue in the corridors of decision-making regarding the fate of Bisher Al-Khasawneh’s government.
- The prevailing expectation is that Al-Khasawneh will oversee the upcoming elections, after which a new prime minister will be appointed to form the government.
- Proponents of a “transitional government” see it as a necessary “buffer” between an old phase and an upcoming phase with new and party-oriented characteristics. However, this scenario is largely dismissed.
- Supporters of appointing a new prime minister before the elections emphasize the importance of giving him enough time to govern, get accustomed to the political climate, and conduct the elections in a way that enhances his standing among the new members of Parliament, thus facilitating his reappointment after the elections.
- Several factors could tip the balance between the two scenarios. The first is whether the king has a trustworthy alternative in mind to oversee the upcoming elections. The second is whether there’s consensus among the decision-making institutions responsible for offering advice in this area, thus unifying opinion, or if there is division and conflicting opinions.
Introduction
Although the matter of the parliamentary elections has been definitively settled with the king’s visit to the Independent Election Commission and his call to hold elections, followed by the Commission’s designation of September 10th as the date for this constitutional event, there is still a significant and pivotal matter that has not yet been resolved within decision-making circles. This pertains to the fate of the government and whether it will be the government that will conduct the elections, or if a new government and prime minister will be appointed to oversee the elections and stay afterward, or perhaps a transitional prime minister who will conduct the elections and then leave immediately afterward.
Al-Khasawneh Government and the Question of its Fate
Discussions and internal options have revolved around pivotal points. While the dissolution of the Parliament has been postponed until the end of its constitutional term (which is July 16th), the prevailing—if not conclusive—opinion is that Al-Khasawneh will supervise the conducting of the upcoming elections, after which a new prime minister will be appointed to form the government. If the Parliament is dissolved earlier (than mid-July), then the government will be forced to resign, leading to two main scenarios: The first is for a transitional prime minister to be appointed (often a consensual figure with political experience) who will oversee the elections and then depart, or a new prime minister to form a government, conduct the elections, and then undertake a cabinet reshuffle after the elections, consulting with the parliamentary blocs, which are expected to have a party-oriented nature, possibly incorporating some members of parliament and party figures into the new reshuffle.
The internal discussions within the decision-making circles indicate that, so far, the idea of a “transitional prime minister” has been discarded due to its limited benefits, as it would essentially be a caretaker government with limited authority in a critical historical phase that requires a strong government capable of making strategic decisions. Proponents of a transitional government may see it as a necessary “buffer” between the “conventional phase” and a new, distinct party-based phase, allowing the post-election prime minister to interact with the parliament and consult with parliamentary blocs without any pre-existing negative record or unjustified ministerial baggage for a brief period.
In any case, it seems—the most likely scenario—that the idea of a transitional prime minister has been dismissed. Simply put, the current government can continue until the elections without the “headache” of forming a new government and all the complications that entail, leaving two possible outcomes: The Parliament is dissolved before July 16th, leading to a new prime minister conducting the elections, or after July 15th, allowing Prime Minister Al-Khasawneh to oversee the elections, giving his government the unique distinction of conducting parliamentary elections twice. However, this would likely involve a cabinet reshuffle, especially in light of rumors that one or two ministers are considering running in the upcoming parliamentary elections.
Between the Choices of Keeping the Government or Infusing New Blood
Each of the two previously mentioned scenarios has advocates and supporters, both within and outside “the system.” Proponents of a new prime minister before the elections emphasize the importance of having a leader who has enough time to govern, get accustomed to the political atmosphere, and conduct the elections in a manner that enhances his standing among the new members of Parliament. This could facilitate his reappointment after the elections, potentially allowing for government reshuffling and development to align with the expected party-oriented consultations with the new parliament.
Those who oppose this scenario argue that the upcoming parliament will have demands related to the government, its composition, and its relationship with political parties, putting the prime minister in a dilemma where he might need to let go of most of his cabinet, even if they’ve been in office for only a few months. This counterpoint has two rebuttals. First, the upcoming government could have a streamlined and limited cabinet before the elections, giving the prime minister flexibility to make the necessary adjustments after the parliamentary consultations. Second, having a government before the elections, with the prime minister’s advantage in conducting the elections, could give him leverage in negotiating with parliamentary blocs, resisting attempts to pressure the prime minister for party interests, as long as the agreed-upon modernization plan doesn’t tie upcoming governments to a short time frame. Instead, the clear goal is a ten-year horizon, avoiding rushing the party experiment to prevent its failure before it matures, which might happen if political parties are incorporated into the government in the short term.
As for the other scenario where the current government remains to conduct the upcoming elections before a new prime minister is appointed, its proponents argue that there is no need to rush into dissolving the Parliament and the headache of forming a new government, which involves the ambitions and dilemma of selecting a replacement prime minister. This approach is based on the implicit acknowledgment in broad political circles of the limited alternatives available today. Thus, waiting until after the upcoming elections to appoint a new prime minister with full powers and the ability to negotiate with parliamentary blocs and form a government from scratch is seen as the better scenario. There is no pressing need to dissolve the Parliament, especially since there are only a few months until July, after which it can be dissolved, starting the countdown for the next elections.
On the other hand, critics of this scenario, both within “the system” and outside it, believe that the political scene needs a strong new push before the upcoming elections. They also point out that economic policies are equally important and that there is a need for new dynamics, especially with the war in Gaza and concerns about the absence of an official and governmental narrative on the streets and its potential impact on the upcoming elections. Therefore, they argue that a new prime minister with a new government and a new symbolic message is required, revitalizing the political environment before the upcoming elections, rather than leaving it in a stage of clinical death, waiting for the elections. Otherwise, a new prime minister will be appointed without prior experience, preparation, or any groundwork before the elections.
Conclusion
Until recently, the scenario of the government’s departure seemed the strongest and most likely. However, official circles have recently been revisiting the idea of the government continuing as the better option, even favoring it. The matter ultimately rests in the hands of the king, but there are important factors that could influence the likelihood of either of the previous scenarios. The first is whether the king has a trustworthy alternative in mind to oversee the upcoming elections. The second is whether there’s consensus among the decision-making institutions that offer advice in this domain, unifying opinion to make it the best choice for the king’s consideration, or if there’s division and conflicting opinions, creating competition between the two scenarios in the final decision-making process.