Policy Paper -- The Quality of Legislative Debate in the Discussion of the 2026 Draft Law on Education, Teaching, and Human Resource Development
- Executive Summary
This analytical report issued by Al-Hayat Center – RASED on the discussions of the Twentieth House of Representatives regarding the 2026 Draft Law on Education, Teaching, and Human Resource Development reveals a clear structural gap between the intensity of parliamentary activity under the Dome and its actual impact on legislative outcomes, in one of the most prominent legislative milestones related to building human capital in Jordan.
Although 269 parliamentary interventions were recorded over 12 hours and 42 minutes of debate, with the participation of 86 MPs, this numerical intensity did not translate into tangible legislative effectiveness. Only one proposal out of 271 submitted to a vote was approved, representing no more than 0.5%. This indicates the limited ability of parliamentary deliberations to produce a real effect on the final legal text, reflecting an imbalance in the relationship between parliamentary debate and legislative decision-making.
The analysis shows that the debate was characterized by a high quantitative level alongside a clearly limited qualitative dimension. Interventions of a substantive or pivotal nature accounted for no more than 2.6%, while general or repetitive interventions dominated the discussions overall. It also appears that 202 interventions included proposals; however, this density of proposals did not lead to actual amendments, reinforcing the assumption of weak impact-based legislative analysis and the absence of a systematic approach to proposal formulation.
On the other hand, the time distribution of the debate reflects an imbalance in time management. Articles One and Two alone consumed approximately 46% of the total discussion time, before the pace of article approvals accelerated in later stages, including the passage of 27 articles during the final two working days. This concentration of time created procedural pressure that reduced the space for meaningful debate in the final stages and lowered the overall quality of legislative deliberation.
At the same time, the report recorded positive indicators with respect to procedural discipline. A total of 76.58% of MPs adhered to the set speaking limit for interventions (three minutes), while the proportion of interventions outside the agenda remained limited at 6.32%, despite the large number of speakers. This reflects a relative capacity to manage sessions within procedural rules, even if this did not necessarily translate into stronger legislative substance.
The report further highlights that one of the key explanatory factors behind the limited success of proposals lies in weak coordination among parliamentary blocs, in addition to differences within the same bloc. This constrained MPs’ ability to build coherent collective positions or secure prior consensus around proposed amendments. This points to a flaw in the dynamics of collective parliamentary action and its direct impact on the prospects for influencing legislation.
The analysis also demonstrates that the debate under the Dome was not purely legislative in nature, but intersected with patterns of political and national discourse, often turning it into a platform for general expression rather than a process of technical scrutiny of legal provisions. This was reflected in the limited reliance on evidence (4/10) and weak impact on the legal text (1/10), despite recording a relatively good level of legal consistency (7–8/10).
Based on evaluation indicators derived from international standards, the overall assessment of the quality of legislative debate reached 5.2 out of 10, placing it within a “moderate to weak” range. This reflects the need for a deep review of the tools and mechanisms of legislative work, including the integration of impact analysis, stronger research support for MPs, and improved time management during sessions.
The report concludes that the discussion of the draft education law reflected a state of high political dynamism alongside limited legislative effectiveness, within a broader context that points to institutional challenges in the legislative system. Accordingly, the report stresses the need to adopt integrated institutional reforms aimed at improving the quality of the legislative process. These reforms should focus on improving time management during sessions, institutionalizing mandatory legislative impact assessment, strengthening research and technical support for MPs, and enabling parliamentary blocs to build more coordinated collective positions. The report also underlines the importance of moving toward an evidence-based legislative model that ensures parliamentary debates are more closely linked to legal substance and more capable of producing tangible influence on final legislative texts.
