Investors or citizens? Ani Jordan: Bringing back the “modernization of the economy” document to its “normal size” and embracing its government

Bassam Al Badarin

Amman – Al-Quds Al-Arabi: Suppressing elements of rebellion in seminar organizations and consultations to modernize Jordan’s economic system may be one of confusing goals, but part of it has been achieved on the ground, and part two has been turned by experts into an urgent necessity in the political kitchen dealing with the economic dossier to return to the discussion of issues Honestly, taking action is far from theorizing.
One way or another, as King Abdullah II’s current talks and important tour of the United States touch on the issue of economic attribution, although in part, the government was able, with prior awareness, to curb the results of the seminar by reformulating it in a way clearer, less polarizing directions and closer to the constitutional formula.
This happened practically because the government ministerial kitchen was always interested in formulating recommendations for the modernization and liberalization of the economic system, which would not ignore the demands of investors, even if they were formulated and presented in a way that did not harm the interests of citizens. .
Here I heard “Al-Quds Al-Arabi” directly and from more than one minister in the government that the removal of the accounts of legislation and planning for the citizens is the last thing the state needs in the current complex regional, economic and financial situation.
For one reason or another, in the bureaucracy today in Amman, the capital, there is a strong belief that the desire to separate citizens and investors, especially in economic planning, is a risk and an adventure that can lead to interest evasion. of both parties, although the controversial seminar itself, according to economist Dr. Anwar Al-Khuffash, should have been for the government to embrace it and it was not appropriate for it to be received on the one hand by other institutions where the natural place is.
Al-Quds Al-Arabi realized, early and from a close distance, the Prime Minister Dr. Bishr Al-Khasawneh that the formula of the intergovernmental document on economic reform is not merely an idea, advice or method, but rather a reference. vision; In the sense of a realistic horizontal consciousness of the extent of problems and challenges, and a tendency, on the other hand, to clash, confront and stereotype that isolates as much as possible what is nationally agreed by the jurisprudence of changing ministerial teams or move away and approach at the individual level in relation to setting a national standard that transcends all governments.
This was the vision of the government and the prime minister, but this does not mean that a process of ideas outside the government, regardless of the importance or identity of its participants, should bypass governments; Because the passage by governments is guaranteed and expressed differently from the jump by them. It seems that some of the regulators at the center of the discussions on the modernization of the economic system did not understand its prospects and consequences.
Here, before Al-Quds Al-Arabi a question was raised, entitled: What remains if the documents and recommendations remain truly transcendent to future partisan governments, or if part of the power will be shared with the party representations in Parliament that reflect them ?
A question asked by the political and parliamentary expert, Dr. , on the grounds that it hurts everyone. Therefore, it is believed that a compensation measure has been issued, as the organizers of the seminar on the modernization of the economic system were informed that many of the sectoral or research recommendations related to investors, industrialists and traders have been sent as notes to the government. issued, some participants were told that it would be issued as part of a general framework for it.Relation to recommendations that pass the request by those who attended the workshop.
This report is an observable and visible development and it can only be read from the angle of returning the controversial results of the seminar to its logical and balanced constitutional size, provided that the procedures and details are left to the existing government, and a roadmap is drawn up in which the concept of transit can be applied to governments.
Now it does not matter how and why this happened. The seminar discussions were largely drawn from each other and in some of its details the issue of centralization and polarization emerged. But the realization has happened now, and it means that the data in the economic field, at least, can be turned into a less noisy and controversial nature. Because today’s conversation is about records recorded on the procedural side by investors and agents of industry, trade and transport and sent to the government.
This corresponds to a document that is supposed to be rich, intersecting, and general in the economic scene, meaning that it provides a parallel path with government and a repository of ideas and proposals that identifies problems at certain nodes and proposes formulations to correct issues. , where issues have long broken the partnership between the public and private sectors, and restrictions have long been imposed on investor sectors, and where there are also legislative contradictions and a commitment to the absence of all parties at the same table when the problem and challenges of their licenses and references arise and the majority of control and inspection bodies, in addition to bureaucratic security data that have long been accused of obstructing investment and flow of parties in production equations.
The seminar step and the document for the modernization of the economic system are important, but it is a more serious and important task if it returns to its normal dimensions, as it will become more productive and useful as a consultative framework that serves the opinion. of the official. kitchen.

Leave a Comment