Following the conclusion of the first regular session of Jordan’s Twentieth House of Representatives, Al Hayat Center – Rased released its first report on parliamentary performance. This marks a shift from the center’s previous practice of issuing a single annual report, as part of a new methodology aimed at aligning with political modernization efforts and enhancing public access to legislative performance data.
اضافة اعلان
Key Legislative and Oversight Outcomes
During the 37 working days of the first session—26 legislative and 11 oversight days—the Parliament passed 15 laws and discussed the Audit Bureau’s 2022 and 2023 reports. It also submitted 26 legislative proposals to seven standing committees. In comparison, only 10 proposals were submitted during the first extraordinary session of the Nineteenth Parliament, and 5 during the first regular session of the Eighteenth Parliament.
A total of 1,831 legislative interventions were made, with participation from all MPs. The interventions were categorized as follows:
62% were quantitative,
32% qualitative,
6% were off-topic.
Rased recommended reviewing how MPs deliver interventions to avoid duplication within blocs and enhance the efficiency of legislative discourse.
Attendance and Participation
The session recorded a high level of attendance. Not a single session was adjourned due to lack of quorum—an issue that had plagued previous parliaments. Only 7% of working days saw absences, totaling 378 absences (excused and unexcused), compared to 577 in the Nineteenth Parliament and 691 in the Eighteenth.
Oversight Tools
MPs submitted 898 parliamentary questions, with 77% of MPs participating. In comparison:
64% of MPs in the 19th Parliament submitted questions in their first session,
47% in the 18th Parliament,
56% in the 17th Parliament.
Breakdown by electoral origin:
67% from local constituencies,
33% from the general party list,
19% were submitted by female MPs.
Amman’s First District had the highest share of questions (14%), followed by Zarqa (13%), and other districts at lower rates.
Rased introduced a four-level classification for questions (Substantive, Advanced, Acceptable, Formal), with findings as follows:
1.4% were substantive,
16.7% advanced,
44.5% acceptable,
37.4% formal.
Interpellations and Motions
7 interpellations were submitted by 6 MPs, across 3 parliamentary blocs.
6 of the 7 stemmed from escalated questions, a more structured approach compared to previous parliaments where follow-through was lacking.
None of the interpellations were discussed during the session.
34 motions of desire were submitted by 16 MPs—a sharp increase from 2 in the previous parliament and none in the 18th.
Parliamentary Memorandums
A total of 36 memorandums were submitted:
10 from committees,
24 from individual MPs,
2 from party blocs: Mithaq and Azm.
Oversight Interventions
Rased analyzed 463 oversight interventions, categorized into five indicators:
26% were critical of government performance,
17% offered solutions/recommendations,
9% praised institutions,
13% focused on regional/local issues,
35% were symbolic, partisan, or lacked oversight value.
Bloc Performance and Activities
Parliamentary blocs carried out 66 activities, including 17 field visits—quadruple that of the Nineteenth Parliament in its comparable session.
Top performing blocs by activity:
Azm: 21 activities
Centrist Parties Union: 17
Irada and National Islamic: 12
Mithaq: 6
Taqaddom (Progress): 4
Islamic Action Front: 3
Irada and National Islamic Bloc led in desire motions (47%), followed by:
Mithaq (21%),
Islamic Action Front (15%),
Centrist Parties Union (6%),
Azm (3%).
Irada and National Islamic Bloc and Azm Bloc were most active in submitting memorandums (19% each), followed by:
Mithaq (14%),
Islamic Action Front (8%),
Taqaddom and Centrist Union (6% each).
Parliamentary Questions by Bloc
Islamic Action Front submitted 35% of questions (5 members submitted half),
Irada and National Islamic: 16%,
Azm: 14%,
Centrist Parties Union: 13%,
Mithaq: 12%,
Taqaddom: 7%.
Mithaq Bloc had the highest rate of questions listed on oversight agendas (24%), followed by:
Islamic Action Front (22%),
Irada and National Islamic (16%),
Azm (14%),
Centrist Parties (13%),
Taqaddom (8%).
Oversight and Legislative Interventions by Bloc
Oversight interventions (as % of total):
Mithaq: 24%
Islamic Action Front: 22%
Irada and National Islamic: 18%
Centrist Union: 13%
Azm: 12%
Taqaddom: 9%
Legislative interventions:
Islamic Action Front: 36%
Mithaq: 22%
Irada and National Islamic: 12%
Azm & Centrist Union: 10% each
Taqaddom: 8%
Bloc Attendance Rates
Lowest absenteeism:
Taqaddom (15 MPs): 12%
Irada and National Islamic (20 MPs): 12%
Islamic Action Front (31 MPs): 15%
Centrist Union (17 MPs) and Azm (17 MPs): 16%
Mithaq (36 MPs): 29%
Standing Committees
A total of 297 activities were recorded by committees, including 47 field visits. In comparison:
19th Parliament: 249 activities (36 visits),
18th Parliament: 211 activities (27 visits).
Top committees:
Finance: 34 activities
Legal: 31
Youth and Sports: 25
Administrative: 24
Labor and Social Development: 20
Economy and Investment: 19
Foreign Affairs & Public Services and Transport: 18 each
Social Media Engagement
Rased also analyzed the Parliament’s Facebook page between Nov 17, 2024, and May 18, 2025:
Over 9 million views
203,586 engagements (likes, comments, shares)
Committee Facebook pages published 591 posts, led by:
Finance Committee: 123 posts (20.8%)
Labor and Legal Committees: 34 posts each
