Regulating Ministerial Conduct: A New Phase in Jordan's Public Governance?

One of the most frequently asked questions following Prime Minister Jaafar Hassan’s directive to draft a Ministerial Conduct Regulation has been: Why did it take so long? And why were the constitutional principles prohibiting conflicts of interest not translated into clear and binding executive rules decades ago?

Observers of Prime Minister Hassan’s performance over the past several months argue that this initiative is not an isolated decision but rather an extension of the governing approach he has adopted since taking office.

Despite his extensive experience in public service and previous senior government positions, Hassan has brought with him a management style shaped by his experience at the Royal Hashemite Court one characterized by direct oversight, daily follow-up, performance measurement, and close monitoring of implementation rather than relying solely on broad policy directives.

This approach, according to the article, has created the perception that the government is operating at two different speeds. One is driven by the prime minister himself through close supervision of key files and rapid execution, while the other reflects parts of the ministerial team that continue to rely on more traditional administrative practices.

The proposed Ministerial Conduct Regulation reflects this governing philosophy. Beyond preventing conflicts of interest, it seeks to redefine the role of a minister as a public responsibility governed by strict standards of integrity, impartiality, and transparency.

Since the government’s formation, several characteristics have come to define Hassan’s leadership style.

These include distancing government decision-making from regional or personal considerations, treating national issues as matters of public interest, and emphasizing measurable achievements rather than media attention or personal promotion.

The article also notes that the prime minister has dedicated most of his time to executive work while limiting public appearances and media engagement a contrast to previous administrations where publicity sometimes overshadowed tangible results.

At the same time, Hassan has maintained an institutional relationship with Parliament based on constitutional principles and the separation of powers, avoiding populist approaches or political alliances driven by narrow interests.

From a communications perspective, the article argues that Hassan may be one of Jordan’s least media-focused prime ministers, showing little interest in building a personal media presence or promoting himself through dedicated communications teams.

This, it suggests, reflects an administrative philosophy that prioritizes results over visibility.

However, the article emphasizes that the success of any prime minister ultimately depends not only on individual performance but also on the ability of the entire cabinet to operate at the same level of efficiency.

The performance gap between the prime minister and some ministers has increasingly become a topic of discussion in political and administrative circles, making new mechanisms for regulating ministerial conduct more important than ever.

According to the analysis, the proposed regulation goes beyond addressing conflicts of interest.

It sends a broader message that the next phase of governance will be built on stricter standards of accountability, legality, neutrality, and ethical public service.

The article concludes that the regulation represents more than just another legislative measure.

If accompanied by stronger performance evaluation and accountability mechanisms, it could mark the beginning of a more efficient, transparent model of government one in which institutional performance becomes the primary standard for success and where the rule of law remains the guiding principle of public administration.