Since forming his government on September 18, 2024, succeeding the government of Bisher Al-Khasawneh, Prime Minister Dr. Jafar Hassan has appeared to be pursuing a different approach to managing his ministerial team.
اضافة اعلان
His approach is not based on the notion of a ministry as a reward or a portfolio as political appeasement, but rather on a stricter equation: those who perform efficiently are granted greater confidence and authority; those who falter are held accountable; and those who need time to prove themselves are given a genuine opportunity without undue haste.
Although this equation may appear simple on the surface, it represents a departure from a longstanding governmental practice in which many ministers remained in office because of loyalties or geographic and tribal considerations, rather than on the basis of performance.
In late June, Hassan resolved the conflict-of-interest case involving Minister of Labour Khaled Al-Bakkar, ordering the suspension of the relevant tenders, which ultimately led to Al-Bakkar’s resignation.
The move sent a clear message that the law would not be applied selectively and that ministerial office does not provide immunity from accountability.
By contrast, in the ministerial reshuffle carried out in early August, Hassan chose a different course, distancing himself from the noise of political salons that tend to focus on geographic and tribal balances rather than performance.
Instead of removing ministers with strong records, as some political circles had advocated, he promoted Muhannad Shehadeh and Walid Al-Masri by appointing them as his deputies while retaining their respective ministerial portfolios.
The aim was to strengthen their ability to lead the Economic Modernisation and Public Services committees and grant them broader powers to accelerate the pace of implementation.
In doing so, Hassan established two clear principles: there is no immunity for a minister or anyone else from accountability, while strong performance is rewarded with greater authority and confidence.
More importantly, Hassan did not treat every case of underperformance as grounds for immediate dismissal.
In the latest reshuffle, he retained a number of ministers whose performance has not yet been particularly notable, choosing instead to give them more time rather than subjecting them to a constant cycle of replacements that could disrupt the work of ministries and prevent the accumulation of institutional experience.
The Prime Minister’s Office explicitly articulated this approach, stressing that Hassan is keen to establish a different method of managing the government team one based on accumulated experience, stability, and harmony among its members, while giving ministers sufficient time to work and take responsibility for the portfolios they oversee, rather than resorting to constant changes.
Although some may view this approach as unjustified caution, it reflects a degree of administrative maturity.
A minister who is replaced every few months does not have enough time to master their portfolio, whereas relative stability provides a greater opportunity to assess actual performance rather than relying on quick impressions.
Finally, in my view, what distinguishes Hassan’s approach is not simply that he held one minister accountable or rewarded two others. More significantly, he did so in the face of the “noise of political salons” that usually surrounds any cabinet reshuffle.
Ahead of the latest reshuffle, platforms and social media were filled with speculation, names, and pressure for a broader change aimed at satisfying particular geographic, tribal, and partisan calculations, Some sources even predicted that more than ten ministers would leave and five new ministers would join the government.
Hassan, however, opted for a limited and carefully considered reshuffle, confined to a single constitutional requirement involving the merger of two ministries, alongside the appointment of two deputy prime ministers.
In doing so, he rejected the logic of “reshuffling for the sake of appeasement” a practice that has long been a defining feature of the governmental landscape.
