Introduction

Modernizing political party life is no longer merely a matter of restructuring organizational frameworks or increasing party membership. Rather, it has become a broader question concerning the capacity of political parties to foster a more open political environment, provide genuine opportunities for participation, and transform young people from a demographic whose interests are represented by others into active contributors to program development, decision-making, and the exercise of public responsibility. The true measure of any political modernization process lies in its ability to bring about a tangible transformation in the relationship between citizens and political institutions, and in the extent to which individuals perceive their participation as capable of producing meaningful outcomes.

This position paper is situated within a broader debate that extends beyond conventional understandings of political party activities. It addresses a series of interconnected questions concerning the nature of programmatic political parties, the position of youth and women in political life, the scope of local participation, the degree of intra-party democracy, and the relationship between political organizations, universities, and society. It also examines the factors that may lead some young people to disengage from party politics or approach political participation with caution. These questions cannot be considered in isolation, as weaknesses in any dimension of political participation inevitably affect the others.

The discussion proceeds from a central premise: the vitality of a political party should not be measured solely by its longevity or organizational size, but rather by its capacity to generate political programs, ideas, qualified cadres, and leadership. Equally important is its ability to engage with public issues and translate them into political initiatives that can be debated, implemented, and evaluated. A programmatic political party is an institution expected to maintain a continuous presence within society, attract and develop capable individuals, and provide meaningful opportunities for their involvement in policymaking and decision-making processes.

At the heart of this transformation are young people. Referring to youth as the "leaders of tomorrow" may appear to acknowledge their importance; however, when such rhetoric persists indefinitely, it can become a mechanism for continually postponing their participation in leadership today. Leadership is developed through practice, experience, and the assumption of responsibility. Accordingly, recognizing young people as partners in the present requires moving beyond merely inviting them to attend events and participate in discussions. Instead, they must be meaningfully involved in developing political programs, managing committees, participating in electoral processes, and assuming responsibilities that progressively prepare them for leadership positions.

At the same time, this paper raises the question of young people's own responsibilities within this relationship. Creating political opportunities does not automatically translate into meaningful participation, just as demands for political renewal cannot be separated from a willingness to invest time and effort, acquire knowledge and experience, and work within institutional frameworks. Political party leadership is a developmental process that requires cumulative experience, sustained engagement, tangible achievements, and the capacity to assume responsibility. This raises several fundamental questions: Do political parties provide young people with genuine opportunities for participation? Do young people effectively utilize these opportunities when they become available? And where political disengagement persists, what are its underlying causes and motivations?

The paper also examines the relationship between political participation and local-level engagement, particularly in the context of debates surrounding local councils and the distribution of powers and responsibilities. This discussion proceeds from the understanding that democracy is tested through the ability of local communities to influence issues directly affecting their daily lives. Participation becomes more meaningful when accompanied by clearly defined powers and responsibilities, and when citizens believe that their voices can shape the developmental and service-related priorities of their communities.

Equally significant is the question of democracy within political parties themselves. A party that advocates political participation at the societal level must ensure that democratic practices are embedded within its own organizational structures. This requires internal elections, the rotation of leadership responsibilities, opportunities for emerging talent, and an institutional environment that accommodates differences of opinion and constructive debate. Without such internal practices, calls for democracy risk remaining constrained by a persistent gap between political rhetoric and institutional reality.

The discussion further extends to universities and civil society organizations as important spaces for developing political awareness and acquiring practical experience in public engagement. Political participation within universities, when organized responsibly and directed toward issues affecting students and society, can provide young people with early opportunities to engage in dialogue, electoral processes, and collective action. Conversely, treating universities merely as arenas for seasonal electoral competition may undermine their broader role in cultivating political culture and democratic values.

One of the most significant challenges highlighted by this discussion is the gap between rhetoric and practice. Young people may be celebrated in political speeches and public events, while their opportunities to exercise genuine influence diminish when they begin expressing independent positions or demanding more substantive roles. Similarly, boycotts or disengagement from certain forms of participation, including student elections, should be approached as phenomena requiring careful examination of their underlying causes and motivations. Such responses may reveal important insights into the level of public confidence in the effectiveness of participation and representative institutions.

Accordingly, this paper does not seek to offer a predetermined formula for modernizing political party life, nor does it attribute responsibility for the challenges of political participation to any single actor. Rather, it aims to critically examine the relationship between political institutions and young people, between membership and participation, between participation and influence, and between influence and leadership. Political modernization is a process of shared responsibility. It requires more open political parties capable of developing substantive programs and emerging leaders, institutions that are more responsive to dialogue and participation, and young people who are better prepared to engage in organized political activity and assume public responsibilities.

From this perspective, the paper places a central question at the forefront of public debate: How can political life move from a situation in which young people are merely present in the political landscape to one in which they actively contribute to shaping it; from political parties that recruit members to parties that cultivate leaders; and from democracy articulated in political rhetoric to democracy practiced and tested within institutions?

Addressing this question requires reconsidering the very concept of political participation, so that its ultimate objective is no longer merely to increase numerical representation or visibility, but rather to build genuine capacities for political influence and meaningful participation in decision-making.

Chapter One: Modernizing Political Party Activities and Redefining the Roles of Youth and Political Parties

Discussions surrounding the modernization of political party life in Jordan require moving beyond traditional perceptions that measure the strength of political parties primarily by their founding dates or organizational longevity. Instead, greater emphasis must be placed on their capacity to generate meaningful impact, develop substantive political programs, attract qualified individuals, and translate ideas into tangible political and societal practices. Institutions, whether political parties or public entities, derive their value not merely from their longevity but from their ability to renew themselves, respond to changing circumstances, develop capable individuals who can contribute meaningfully to public life, and generate an impact that extends beyond their institutional boundaries. A relatively newly established institution may demonstrate greater vitality and productivity than institutions with long organizational histories that have not been accompanied by improvements in performance or innovation in their operational approaches.

Accordingly, evaluating a political party should not be based on the number of years it has existed or the extent of its organizational legacy, but rather on the political, intellectual, and programmatic value it contributes to society and the state. Organizational longevity does not, in itself, guarantee effectiveness, just as institutional novelty does not necessarily indicate weakness. A more meaningful criterion lies in an institution's capacity to formulate policies, develop political cadres, manage differences of opinion, engage with society, and contribute to public decision-making. Therefore, modernizing political party life requires a transition from a culture that celebrates institutional history to one that evaluates institutions according to their achievements and their capacity to deliver future results.

From this perspective, political party modernization becomes a process that extends beyond organizational restructuring or the renewal of political rhetoric to encompass a fundamental reconsideration of the role of political parties within the state and society. By their legal and political nature, political parties are neither temporary electoral vehicles nor institutions whose functions are limited to competing for parliamentary seats. Rather, they are political, programmatic, societal, and economic institutions whose activities intersect with the various issues affecting citizens and the state. Politics encompasses legislation, economic and social policies, education, healthcare, employment, relations between state institutions and society, and other matters of public concern. Consequently, a political party that lacks a clear program addressing these issues remains limited in its ability to establish itself as a genuinely effective political actor.

This understanding becomes particularly significant in light of the transformations taking place within Jordanian society. Citizens, especially younger generations, no longer approach politics in the same manner that prevailed during earlier periods. Modern communication technologies, the increasing flow of information, the expansion of public debate, and changes in the relationship between citizens and institutions have collectively reshaped the expectations of younger generations regarding political engagement. Therefore, political parties seeking to remain relevant in the future cannot rely exclusively on conventional methods of political activity. They require discourse that is more closely connected to contemporary realities, programs that are understandable and measurable, and organizational mechanisms that enable young people to become producers of ideas and participants in decision-making.

Young people occupy a central position within this transformation. However, traditional political discourse has frequently portrayed them as the "leaders of the future," a formulation that appears positive but may implicitly postpone their political roles to a later stage. Young people are not merely a reserve of human resources for political parties, nor are they a generation expected to assume leadership only after many years. Rather, they are an integral part of the present political landscape and are entitled to meaningful roles in decision-making and public affairs. If the objective of political party modernization is to cultivate new leadership, this cannot be achieved solely through slogans emphasizing youth empowerment. Instead, young people must be provided with opportunities to exercise leadership, participate actively, and exert influence in the present.

This requires redefining the relationship between youth and political party engagement. Joining a political party should not be motivated primarily by the pursuit of positions or personal benefits, nor should a party be regarded as an institution obligated to provide direct material or personal advantages to its members. Political engagement should fundamentally originate from ideas, convictions, a shared vision, and a political program. Individuals should then seek the organizational framework through which they can translate these convictions into structured political action and a political project capable of further development. In this sense, party membership becomes an expression of intellectual and political choice rather than merely a form of organizational affiliation.

Conversely, political parties bear substantial responsibility for ensuring that such choices are meaningful. A party seeking to attract young people must do more than simply open its membership to them; it must also provide genuine opportunities for participation and influence. This requires creating meaningful spaces for dialogue, involving members in formulating political positions and programs, and establishing opportunities for organizational advancement based on competence, engagement, and achievement rather than age, personal proximity to leadership, or considerations unrelated to political merit. Young people need more than seats at meetings; they need opportunities to demonstrate their capacity to participate in decision-making and assume responsibility.

In this context, political and party engagement can be understood as a form of organized civic struggle, not in its historical sense associated with the methods or circumstances of earlier periods, but rather as an individual's capacity to establish a meaningful presence through knowledge, initiative, sustained effort, and commitment. A party member, whether young or older, does not become an effective political actor merely by obtaining membership. Effectiveness emerges through the ability to contribute ideas, participate in developing political programs, advocate political positions, and engage in public affairs. Accordingly, responsibility for renewing political parties cannot be attributed exclusively to party leadership, nor can it be placed solely on young people. Rather, it is a shared responsibility requiring both the creation of opportunities and the willingness to take initiative.

Modernizing political party activities cannot be separated from the characteristics of Jordan's social structure, particularly the historical presence and role of tribal institutions. A party-based political approach does not necessarily require confronting tribal structures or eliminating their social functions. Historically, tribal communities have performed multiple economic, social, and political roles. However, with the development of the modern state and the emergence of organized political parties operating within a legal framework, it becomes necessary to reconsider the distribution of these roles in accordance with the evolution of state institutions.

Social functions based on solidarity, cooperation, and interpersonal relationships within tribal communities can remain an integral part of Jordan's social fabric and do not necessarily conflict with the principles of the modern state. Political functions, however, should gradually transition toward formal political institutions and parties, as these constitute the frameworks through which political competition is organized according to programs, legislation, and electoral processes. This transition does not imply abolishing tribal structures or weakening social ties. Rather, it entails distinguishing between the social functions of tribal institutions and the political responsibilities of parties, thereby reducing institutional overlap and strengthening the development of formal political institutions.

Nevertheless, the success of this transformation depends significantly on the level of trust young people place in the public sphere. Younger generations cannot reasonably be expected to engage in political parties and public participation while their observations of institutional practices and decisions that shape their perceptions of justice, opportunity, and merit are disregarded. Young people continuously observe political and institutional realities, compare publicly stated commitments with actual practices, and formulate their attitudes according to the degree of consistency between the two. The wider the gap between rhetoric surrounding youth empowerment and young people's perception of genuine opportunities, the less attractive political participation may become to them.

For this reason, recognizing and respecting young people's capabilities and intellectual capacities constitutes an essential component of building trust in institutions. Young individuals encouraged to believe in political party engagement need to see that the public sphere can accommodate competence and ambition and that participation can translate into meaningful outcomes. Retaining young talent within the national public sphere also requires providing tangible opportunities for engagement, productivity, and leadership, rather than leaving young people in a prolonged state of anticipation or encouraging them, indirectly, to seek alternative spaces for expressing their aspirations and capabilities.

At this intersection, the responsibilities of the state and political parties converge. The government is expected to provide an institutional environment consistent with the objectives of political modernization and conducive to strengthening confidence in public participation. Political parties, meanwhile, are responsible for reviewing their internal structures, decision-making mechanisms, and approaches to attracting qualified individuals. A political party cannot credibly call upon the state to expand political participation if its own internal structures fail to provide members with comparable opportunities for engagement and influence. Likewise, young people cannot demand change without assuming responsibility for developing their political knowledge, organizational capabilities, and practical skills.

Accordingly, the modernization of political party life should not be measured solely by the number of political parties or their membership figures, but by their capacity to foster a more dynamic political environment, formulate programs that respond more effectively to public needs, and develop new leaders capable of assuming responsibility. The true measure of modernization lies in the impact of political participation on society and in a party's ability to transform the capabilities of its members into institutional action, differences of opinion into political programs, membership into responsibility, and young people from a target constituency into active partners in decision-making.

Ultimately, the central question in modernizing political party activities should concern what political participation actually produces and the extent of the influence that citizens, particularly young people, can exercise from within political institutions. Genuine modernization begins when political parties become spaces for developing ideas, formulating programs, and cultivating leadership; when young people become partners in the political present rather than promises deferred to the future; and when political participation becomes an effective means of influencing public decision-making within the framework of the rule of law and state institutions. Such a transformation would strengthen the transition from the mere existence of political parties to their substantive effectiveness, and from nominal membership to meaningful and influential participation.

Chapter Two: From Participation to Decision-Making and Rebuilding Political Engagement

The modernization of political and party life cannot be achieved merely by expanding the base of participation or increasing the number of individuals affiliated with political parties. The more fundamental challenge lies in the nature of this participation and its capacity to evolve from mere presence to meaningful influence, and from representation to active involvement in decision-making. Democracy is measured by the actual ability of young people to influence the policies, programs, and decisions that affect their lives and communities. Accordingly, any process of political modernization requires a reassessment of the relationship between participation and power, elections and responsibility, and the presence of different social groups within institutions and their capacity to influence institutional directions.

Within this context, local governance emerges as a key issue directly connected to political participation and local development. Elected local councils cannot fulfill their intended purpose if their powers remain limited or if fundamental decisions concerning development, public services, and local expenditure continue to be concentrated at the central level. Elected councils require substantive authority that enables them to translate local aspirations and preferences into policies and development projects. Otherwise, elections risk becoming merely procedural exercises that do not necessarily generate meaningful political participation or tangible outcomes.

This perspective highlights the need to reconsider the structure of local governance to ensure a genuine transfer of powers and responsibilities to elected municipal councils. Such councils should become development-oriented institutions capable of identifying local priorities, planning projects, responding to community needs, and holding executive authorities accountable for their performance and achievements. Decentralization, in this sense, should not be understood merely as transferring certain administrative functions from central government to local authorities. Rather, it entails building local capacities for decision-making, assuming responsibility, and monitoring institutional performance.

From this standpoint, the debate surrounding governorate councils and municipal councils forms part of a broader discussion concerning the administrative structure of the state and the capacity of local communities to manage their own affairs. At its core, the issue concerns which institutions should exercise authority over local development decisions and the extent to which elected bodies can effectively implement their mandated powers. If proposals to restructure governorate councils are being considered, the central objective of reform should be to ensure that such changes do not result in the recentralization of authority, but instead strengthen the capacity of municipal councils to fulfill their developmental and political responsibilities.

This discussion assumes additional importance because local participation can serve as a practical foundation for democratic engagement. Citizens who participate in electing local councils and subsequently observe that these councils possess genuine powers and can influence public services and development priorities are more likely to perceive democracy as a tangible practice connected to their everyday lives, rather than merely an abstract concept or a periodic electoral event. Conversely, electing councils that lack sufficient authority and operational tools may widen the gap between public expectations and actual outcomes, thereby weakening confidence in the value of political participation.

Alongside local governance, the representation of young people and women within political parties and political institutions constitutes a critical test of meaningful participation. In recent years, the debate has shifted from questioning whether women and young people are present within political institutions to a more fundamental question: Do they actually participate in decision-making? Numerical representation, despite its importance, is insufficient on its own to demonstrate meaningful political participation. Individuals may attend meetings and hold positions within organizational bodies without possessing genuine influence over institutional positions, policies, or decisions.

For this reason, modernizing political party activities requires moving from the concept of "presence" to that of "influence." Young people and women should not be included in political life merely as essential components of public representation or as numerical indicators intended to improve representation rates. Rather, they should be recognized as individuals possessing perspectives, competencies, and the capacity to contribute to program development and decision-making. Participation acquires greater significance when members feel that their voices are heard and that their contributions can be translated into institutional positions, policies, or decisions.

This issue is closely connected to the concept of political justice, which cannot be separated from social and economic justice. Political participation is not a privilege to be granted selectively to certain groups. Opportunities to assume political responsibility should be accessible to individuals who possess the necessary competence, capacity, and willingness to engage in public affairs. Political justice does not necessarily imply guaranteeing equal access to leadership positions irrespective of merit. Rather, it entails removing barriers that prevent citizens from participating and providing opportunities for individuals to demonstrate their capabilities through engagement, elections, and democratic competition.

Within this framework, intra-party democracy assumes central importance. Political parties that advocate democracy in the public sphere must also practice democratic principles within their own organizational structures. Internal elections, leadership rotation, transparent selection procedures, the accommodation of diverse perspectives, and accountability mechanisms are not secondary organizational arrangements. Rather, they are essential components of developing a renewed political culture. The more leadership positions emerge through clear electoral processes, the more political authority becomes associated with an individual's ability to earn members' confidence and remain accountable to them for decisions taken.

Political party experiences characterized by broad-based internal elections provide practical models through which the transition from democracy as a slogan to democracy as an institutional practice can be assessed. Internal political competition can also serve as a mechanism for developing competencies, cultivating leadership, and testing political programs and ideas. Furthermore, leadership rotation within political parties creates opportunities for renewing political elites and prevents organizational positions from becoming permanent centers of power inaccessible to younger generations.

In this context, the advancement of individuals from diverse social and geographical backgrounds into leadership positions within political parties can serve as an indicator of the expanding political opportunities available to groups that may not previously have perceived themselves as participants in decision-making. Access to leadership should be associated with the individual's contributions, efforts, ideas, persuasive abilities, and capacity to earn the confidence of institutional members, rather than necessarily being determined by social standing, personal background, or traditional status. This principle is directly connected to the concept of building political parties on the basis of political citizenship rather than historically established social privileges.

This also necessitates reconsidering the relationship between party membership and political citizenship. Political party members should progressively become politically engaged citizens who are better equipped to understand public issues, participate in debate, formulate informed positions, and exercise oversight and accountability. In this sense, party membership becomes the initial stage of a broader process of political empowerment rather than an objective in itself.

Similarly, the empowerment of women and young people is achieved through their integration into different levels of decision-making. The presence of women within political parties, without their participation in shaping positions concerning the economy, education, employment, family affairs, and social policies, or the inclusion of young people without enabling them to contribute to policies relating to education, employment, innovation, and digital transformation, confines participation to a largely symbolic role. Genuine empowerment begins when these groups become active partners in defining problems, proposing solutions, and advocating their adoption within political institutions.

Achieving this transition requires a transformation in political culture itself: from traditional leadership structures characterized by prolonged continuity in office toward leadership rotation based on elections, competence, and the renewal of members' confidence. It also requires shifting from democracy as a political slogan to democracy as an everyday institutional practice. Democracy does not begin on election day and end with the announcement of results. Rather, it continues through the ways political parties are managed, decisions are made, responsibilities are distributed, differences of opinion are addressed, and leaders are held accountable.

Accordingly, the modernization of political participation should be understood as an integrated process encompassing multiple levels: local governance institutions equipped with genuine decision-making powers; political parties that practice democracy within their internal structures; young people and women who move beyond mere presence to meaningful influence; leadership that is renewed through electoral processes; and citizens who evolve from party members or voters into active participants in political life. All these elements are connected by a broader principle: rebuilding trust between citizens and political institutions.

The ultimate objective is to strengthen the capacity of political participation to shape public decision-making. Therefore, the required transformation can be summarized as a shift from measuring presence to assessing influence, from membership to political citizenship, from representation to empowerment, from traditional leadership to leadership rotation, and from democracy as a slogan to democracy as an institutional practice. Within this framework, political participation becomes a mechanism for cultivating new leaders and developing policies that are more responsive to societal needs, rather than merely a means of conferring formal legitimacy upon existing institutions.

Chapter Three: From Seasonal Engagement to Sustainable Political Party Activity

If the transition from mere presence to meaningful participation in decision-making constitutes one of the fundamental requirements for modernizing political life, the next challenge lies in ensuring that such participation becomes sustainable and closely connected to citizens' everyday lives, particularly those of young people. Political parties that engage with society only during election periods, or reactivate their presence as political milestones approach, face considerable difficulties in building strong and lasting political relationships with younger generations. Conversely, parties capable of maintaining a continuous presence in public debate, universities, and issues of concern to citizens are better positioned to transform political participation from a seasonal event into an ongoing practice.

Within this context, the concept of "political party responsiveness to reality" emerges as a fundamental approach to restoring young people's interest in political engagement. Jordanian youth do not primarily need superficial political rhetoric or generalized slogans about the future and empowerment. Rather, they need political parties capable of listening to them, understanding their priorities, and treating their aspirations as essential inputs into the formulation of political programs and public policies. A party program developed in isolation from society may be theoretically coherent, but its capacity to generate meaningful impact remains limited unless it addresses the actual challenges experienced by citizens.

Therefore, the development of political party programs should begin within society rather than merely end with their presentation to it. This requires political parties to engage directly with young people, listen to their perspectives, concerns, and aspirations, and subsequently translate these contributions into policies, programs, and organizational structures capable of responding to them. Young people themselves constitute an essential source of knowledge regarding the issues affecting their generation. When they become active participants in identifying problems and formulating solutions, the relationship between political parties and youth evolves from one centered on electoral recruitment into a genuine political partnership.

Universities assume particular significance in this context, as they represent natural environments for developing political awareness and preparing younger generations for public participation. Universities provide spaces for social interaction, dialogue, the formation of political orientations, and the development of emerging leadership. Accordingly, the presence of political parties within university environments, subject to the applicable legal and regulatory frameworks, can contribute to fostering a culture of political participation among young people, provided that party activities do not become limited to electoral campaigning or seasonal political recruitment.

The experiences highlighted in the discussion suggest the possibility of developing a more systematic approach to political party engagement within universities through cooperation between academic institutions and political parties, alongside the establishment of organized student frameworks that enable young people to become familiar with political programs, discuss them, and contribute to their development. Rather than limiting party engagement to student elections, a continuous process could be established through which student political blocs engage with issues affecting students, propose solutions, organize discussions, and develop young people's skills in public engagement and political position-formulation.

The significance of this approach lies in its capacity to transform political party activities from a "campaign-based" model into an "institutional" model. A seasonal political party becomes visible during elections and subsequently withdraws from active public engagement, whereas a sustainable political party maintains its presence between electoral cycles, monitors public issues, develops its members' capabilities, evaluates its performance, and engages continuously with society. Sustainability, in this context, refers to the existence of organizational mechanisms, programs, and internal institutions that make political activity an integral component of the party's daily operations.

From this perspective, establishing organized student political blocs within universities can provide a practical opportunity to transform young people from passive recipients of political discourse into active practitioners of political engagement. Participation in an organized student framework enables young individuals to develop skills in dialogue management, negotiation, the formulation of demands, teamwork, managing differences of opinion, and assuming responsibility. These competencies are not confined to the university environment; rather, they can form an initial foundation for preparing political cadres who are better equipped to participate in public life.

However, the success of such experiences requires student blocs and organizational frameworks to remain connected to the actual concerns of students rather than functioning merely as extensions or symbolic representations of political parties. The more effectively these frameworks address issues related to education, university services, extracurricular activities, training opportunities, skills development, employment, and other matters directly affecting students' lives, the greater their capacity to build trust. In this way, politics becomes an everyday practice that begins with a specific issue experienced by students and gradually develops into a broader understanding of public policymaking processes.

Another challenge emerging in this context concerns the relative institutional newness of certain political party experiences. Newly established parties, or those undergoing organizational restructuring, require time to develop their structures, committees, programs, and membership bases. Building a coherent political institution is necessarily a cumulative process that demands continuous assessment, the development of internal organizational structures, the distribution of responsibilities, and the establishment of specialized committees. Among these, youth committees should not function merely as symbolic organizational bodies, but rather as effective mechanisms for developing policies and cultivating political cadres.

Nevertheless, the relative newness of political parties should not become a justification for postponing institutional reform or delaying meaningful participation. Even parties that remain in the early stages of organizational development can establish more inclusive rules from the outset, incorporate youth participation into their institutional structures, and develop committees grounded in clearly defined political and programmatic objectives. Similarly, the passage of several years since a party's establishment does not automatically indicate institutional maturity. Political organizations remain in a continuous process of development as long as they are required to adapt to societal transformations and improve their methods of engagement.

At this point, a fundamental paradox emerges in political discourse concerning youth. On the one hand, young people are repeatedly portrayed as the embodiment of hope, the future, success, political reform, and social transformation. They are widely regarded as the demographic group most capable of advancing political modernization. On the other hand, when discussions shift toward granting them genuine opportunities to exercise influence, resistance sometimes emerges that prevents their transition from passive recipients of political discourse to active political partners. This contradiction creates a gap between rhetoric and practice, potentially undermining young people's confidence in political institutions.

The underlying problem is not necessarily associated with a particular age group, but rather with a political culture that has developed over many years. When positions of influence remain governed by traditional leadership patterns, or when young people are treated primarily as an electoral constituency or a means of projecting an inclusive public image, the discourse of empowerment becomes less convincing. Conversely, when young people become members of organizational bodies and specialized committees, participate in developing political programs and positions, contest internal elections, and assume responsibility for substantive policy areas, empowerment is transformed from rhetoric into institutional practice.

In this context, it is also essential to avoid treating young people as a homogeneous demographic group. Young individuals differ in their interests, backgrounds, experiences, and priorities. Political parties seeking to engage meaningfully with them must therefore develop listening and dialogue mechanisms capable of recognizing and understanding this diversity. This requires sustained engagement through both in-person and digital channels, continuous dialogue, and periodic assessments of emerging attitudes and needs, rather than reliance on preconceived assumptions about young people's expectations.

Furthermore, building sustainable political parties requires the development of programs that remain adaptable to changing circumstances. A political party program constitutes a political framework that should be subject to ongoing review in response to economic, social, and political developments. The more effectively a party establishes mechanisms for evaluating its programs, listening to its membership, and reassessing its positions, the greater its capacity to maintain meaningful connections with society.

Accordingly, modernizing political party life does not end with allocating positions to young people within party structures. Rather, it begins with establishing a fundamentally different relationship with them, based on listening, participation, and shared responsibility. Likewise, modernization is not achieved merely through the presence of political parties within universities, but through the nature of that presence and its contribution to developing knowledge, practical experience, and emerging leadership. Genuine political party engagement is sustained beyond electoral cycles, reflected in everyday issues, and capable of enabling young people to practice politics before assuming formal positions of authority.

Ultimately, the challenge facing Jordanian political parties lies in moving from seasonal visibility to sustained institutional engagement, from recruiting young people to actively involving them, from speaking to youth to listening to them, from presenting political programs to young people to developing those programs with them, and from treating youth as an audience of the future to recognizing them as partners in the present.

A political party capable of making political engagement part of young people's everyday lives, while providing genuine opportunities for practical experience, learning, and leadership, does more than establish an electoral support base. It contributes to the development of a renewed political culture that is more closely connected to society, more institutionally grounded, and better equipped to achieve long-term sustainability.

Chapter Four: Youth Exclusion and the Crisis of Political Leadership Development

Young people's experiences within the political sphere reveal a paradox that warrants careful examination. Society frequently emphasizes the need for change, the importance of youth participation in public life, and the necessity of renewing political elites and leadership. However, actual practices do not always align with this rhetoric. Young individuals who demonstrate an interest in public affairs, develop an independent political voice, or raise critical questions about existing conditions may encounter informal mechanisms that restrict their ability to remain engaged and advance. In such circumstances, the underlying problem lies not necessarily in young people's unwillingness to participate, but rather in the nature of the environment receiving their participation and its capacity to accommodate differing perspectives and individual initiative.

Political and social realities suggest that when young people begin establishing an independent presence or openly expressing their ideas, they may become vulnerable to labeling, exclusion, or marginalization from certain circles of influence. Such practices can take various forms, ranging from denying opportunities to treating independent voices as disruptive or perceiving their autonomy as a threat to established positions. This challenge becomes particularly pronounced when young individuals move from general civic engagement into political party activities or seek to participate in state institutions, universities, or other societal organizations, only to discover that pathways to meaningful influence are not as accessible as youth empowerment rhetoric might suggest.

The significance of these practices extends beyond the individuals directly affected because of the messages they communicate to an entire generation. When young people observe that individuals who demonstrate the courage to raise questions or articulate alternative political perspectives are marginalized, they may begin reconsidering the value of political participation itself. At this point, the issue moves beyond an individual experience and becomes an institutional challenge concerning the capacity of political parties, public institutions, and society to create an environment that accommodates diverse voices and facilitates the rotation of responsibilities and leadership roles.

The situation becomes increasingly complex when these patterns extend into youth organizations and political party structures themselves. Rather than fostering greater cooperation based on shared generational experiences and concerns, divisions may emerge among young people at an early stage due to differences in party affiliation, ideological orientation, or organizational relationships. In some cases, belonging to a particular political party or movement may become a source of division among young people, to the extent that individuals hesitate to engage in dialogue with others solely because they hold different political affiliations.

Such divisions represent an obstacle to the development of a mature political culture. Political disagreement is a natural component of democratic life. However, when differences evolve into social or organizational estrangement, the public sphere loses an important opportunity for younger generations to learn from one another. A young person affiliated with one political movement can engage in constructive dialogue with someone from a different political orientation without abandoning personal convictions or compromising political identity. Indeed, democracy fundamentally requires transforming political differences from sources of separation into opportunities for negotiation, dialogue, and the development of alternative approaches.

This highlights the need to reconsider the concept of "youth engagement" itself. Not every activity described as youth-oriented necessarily contributes to developing leadership, nor does bringing large numbers of young people together through events or programs automatically constitute meaningful empowerment. Genuine empowerment should be assessed according to young people's capacity to progress from attending activities to assuming responsibilities, from participating in meetings to formulating political positions, from implementing assigned tasks to managing substantive portfolios, and from receiving training to applying acquired knowledge in decision-making.

Practical experiences also reveal challenges associated with weak channels of intergenerational knowledge exchange. Young people need to benefit from the experience of previous generations, just as political institutions require the energy, perspectives, and capabilities of emerging generations. Younger individuals should not necessarily view established experience as an obstacle that must be entirely displaced, nor should existing leaders treat youth merely as trainees who must wait many years before gaining the right to participate meaningfully. The development of political leadership is inherently cumulative and requires the transfer of knowledge and experience between generations while simultaneously providing younger individuals with genuine opportunities for experimentation, initiative, and responsibility.

Accordingly, listening to young people must become an integral component of decision-making processes themselves. Young individuals who participate in political discussions, undertake specialized training, and engage in civic and party activities accumulate knowledge and experience that can generate meaningful institutional value when opportunities exist to apply them. Conversely, if these capabilities remain confined to training programs and passive participation without progressing toward positions of responsibility, empowerment risks becoming merely symbolic, leaving young people in the role of recipients regardless of their level of preparation and qualification.

One of the most sensitive issues in this context concerns the development of political leadership. The challenge is not limited to the absence of young people from certain positions of responsibility, but also includes the lack of clear and sustainable pathways for preparing emerging leaders. Leadership is not developed merely by granting titles or positions, nor by introducing new individuals when institutions require fresh public figures. Rather, it emerges through a sustained process beginning with political education, followed by training, participation in committees and programs, the assumption of progressively greater responsibilities, and ultimately political competition, elections, and decision-making.

Leadership selection processes must also move beyond practices that prioritize personal proximity or organizational relationships over competence and achievement. When young individuals perceive that dedication, ability, and commitment are insufficient to obtain influential positions, and that advancement depends primarily on personal networks or affiliation with particular groups, their motivation for self-development and political participation may decline. Conversely, when pathways to advancement are transparent and individuals believe they can progress through their contributions and achievements, political participation becomes a meaningful long-term investment.

Young people, however, also bear significant responsibilities in this process. Demanding empowerment does not mean passively awaiting leadership positions, just as criticizing existing leaders is insufficient to establish viable alternatives. Developing political leadership requires political knowledge, an understanding of public affairs, effective communication and dialogue skills, organizational discipline, and a willingness to assume responsibility. Equally important is the ability to work constructively with individuals holding different perspectives. Political leaders should not be assessed solely by their ability to express opinions, but also by their capacity to build consensus, manage disagreement, and translate ideas into practical and implementable programs.

Political modernization also requires reconsidering the relationship between political party engagement, youth initiatives, and civil society activities. These spheres should not operate as isolated entities, as they can collectively serve as complementary pathways for developing politically engaged citizens. Civil society engagement provides young people with practical experience in addressing community issues, while political party participation offers an organizational framework for developing programs and political positions. Public institutions, in turn, provide opportunities to apply these experiences within policymaking processes. The greater the integration among these pathways, the more natural the progression toward leadership becomes and the less dependent it is on chance or personal relationships.

Furthermore, cultivating political leadership should not involve reproducing a single model of political leadership. Instead, institutions should establish environments that recognize and accommodate diverse leadership styles, experiences, and specializations. Society requires leaders capable of parliamentary engagement, others specializing in economics and public policy, others with expertise in local governance, and still others experienced in community development or communication with younger generations through digital platforms. Such diversity enhances political parties' capacity to respond to the complexities of society and prevents leadership from being reduced to a single conventional model.

Ultimately, the fundamental challenge lies in preventing young people from being excluded precisely when they begin developing independent political voices, while establishing clear pathways through which those voices can evolve into substantive roles, responsibilities, and leadership positions. Political modernization loses much of its significance if young people remain visible representatives of the political landscape without becoming active contributors to shaping its substance.

Consequently, building modern political party life requires a renewed political culture that recognizes that disagreement should not lead to exclusion, that independence should not become grounds for political punishment, that training should lead to responsibility, that membership should create opportunities for participation, that participation should result in empowerment, and that empowerment should provide a natural pathway toward developing political leadership.

A society seeking to renew its political elites cannot simultaneously encourage young people to become the leaders of tomorrow while restricting their access to leadership opportunities today. Rather, it must work alongside them, beginning in the present, to establish pathways capable of transforming their political capabilities and aspirations into institutional strengths characterized by continuous renewal and long-term sustainability.

 

 

Chapter Five: Between Participation and Boycott: When Institutions Become a Test of Political Trust

Young people's experiences of political participation reveal that the relationship between younger generations and institutions can be assessed through the tangible impact these spaces have on their confidence in the value of participation and their ability to influence issues that directly affect them. Within this context, the boycott of student elections, as highlighted in the discussion, has emerged as a development warranting particular attention, not merely as an electoral event, but also because of what such a boycott may reveal about changes in young people's relationships with political processes and representative institutions.

The boycott was described as one of the most concerning developments in recent years, particularly because the reported position involved actors from diverse political orientations, including leftists, Islamists, conservatives, and independents. If this characterization accurately reflects the situation, its significance lies not only in declining participation in student elections but also in the convergence of politically diverse groups around a shared position of protest. This raises important questions about the factors that prompted these students to disengage and whether the institutions concerned treated the boycott as a temporary electoral issue or as a political and societal message requiring dialogue, analysis, and an appropriate institutional response.

This issue is particularly significant because universities serve as important early environments for developing public awareness, learning democratic practices, and testing mechanisms of choice, representation, and accountability. Student elections can provide practical settings in which young people learn the meaning of political competition, programmatic engagement, disagreement, acceptance of electoral outcomes, and collective action. Consequently, declining participation or widespread electoral boycotts, when they occur, warrant an examination of their underlying causes rather than a narrow focus on their immediate and visible outcomes.

From this perspective, institutional responsiveness emerges as an essential component of building political trust. Meaningful participation becomes difficult to sustain when individuals perceive that their voices reach institutions but fail to influence decisions, or that their demands are heard during public meetings without being translated into institutional discussions or practical measures. Conversely, listening to demands does not necessarily imply accepting all of them, as institutions may have legitimate legal, administrative, or political reasons for declining certain proposals. The fundamental distinction lies in whether clear mechanisms for dialogue, explanation, and feedback exist, enabling young people to recognize that their participation does not end once their views have been heard.

The issue of student elections therefore intersects directly with the earlier discussion concerning the transition from presence to influence. If the objective of youth engagement is to develop a generation capable of practicing politics responsibly, young people's opinions must be treated as meaningful contributions to the formulation of policies and decisions affecting them. Ceremonial or protocol-based recognition of young people may create a positive public impression in the short term, but it is insufficient to establish sustainable relationships unless accompanied by clear institutional processes for addressing their concerns.

The discussion also highlights an important distinction between the form and substance of participation. Institutions may host young people, organize meetings with them, and welcome student delegations and civil society organizations. However, the real test begins after such meetings conclude: What happened to the demands that were presented? Were they discussed within the institution? Were any translated into proposals or policies? Did young participants receive clear explanations regarding which demands could be addressed, which could not, and why? These questions determine whether dialogue constitutes a genuine political practice or merely a communication exercise aimed at improving an institution's public image.

This issue is inseparable from the nature of political activity itself, as politics fundamentally involves engaging with diverse interests and demands, managing differences, negotiating priorities, and developing workable solutions. Accordingly, opposition to appointed representation or objections to certain mechanisms of representation can be understood within a broader debate concerning the nature of participation sought by young people. The central question is whether they seek roles grounded in genuine representation, choice, and competition, or whether they are being offered predetermined roles that provide insufficient opportunities for meaningful influence.

Within this framework, electoral boycotts themselves can constitute a form of political expression, even though they involve nonparticipation in the electoral process. However, boycotts do not necessarily arise from a single cause, and their motivations cannot be reduced to one explanation. They may reflect objections to electoral rules, limited confidence in electoral outcomes, skepticism regarding the effectiveness of participation, accumulated experiences from previous processes, or other context-specific factors. A rigorous approach to understanding electoral boycotts therefore requires avoiding predetermined assumptions about participants' motivations. Instead, it calls for listening to those involved, examining the reasons they provide, and assessing these explanations against available evidence and indicators.

Furthermore, the potential convergence of politically and ideologically diverse groups around a common protest position requires institutions to reconsider how they interpret youth-related political developments. Young people who share a particular demand do not necessarily hold the same broader political or ideological perspectives. Their common concern may be institutional or related to specific demands rather than ideological. Consequently, categorizing young people exclusively according to their political affiliations may obscure the issues they share and encourage institutions to treat each group as a separate case rather than identifying common concerns that transcend political differences.

The issue of student political participation is also directly connected to a broader challenge concerning the development of political leadership. Universities that do not provide young people with genuine opportunities to experience public engagement, electoral processes that fail to offer credible experiences of competition and representation, and institutions that welcome youth without establishing clear pathways for influence may collectively constrain the development of early political experience. Conversely, providing a democratic environment that allows experimentation, learning from mistakes, dialogue, and constructive disagreement can equip young people with practical experience that theoretical training programs alone cannot provide.

Establishing such an environment also requires redefining the relationship between institutions and young people. Young people should not be treated merely as audiences invited to demonstrate institutional openness, just as institutions should not be expected to automatically accept every youth demand. A more mature relationship is grounded in both rights and responsibilities. Young people have the right to express their opinions, participate in public affairs, and engage in peaceful protest. In return, they bear responsibility for organizing their demands, respecting legal frameworks, proposing alternatives, and participating in public dialogue with sufficient knowledge and discipline. Institutions, meanwhile, are responsible for providing channels that make such participation possible and meaningful.

In this sense, the boycott of student elections should not necessarily be interpreted as the end of political participation, but rather as an opportunity to examine the conditions under which participation takes place. The essential task is to understand what leads young people to regard the ballot box as a meaningful instrument, what strengthens their confidence that electoral choices will produce genuine representation, and what assures them that elected representatives will have sufficient opportunities to articulate and advocate their interests.

The modernization of political life begins with the everyday experiences through which citizens, particularly young people, assess the significance of their voices. Official meetings, group photographs, institutional receptions, and dialogue seminars can all serve useful purposes. However, they contribute to building political trust only when connected to tangible outcomes, follow-up mechanisms, or clear explanations. Accordingly, moving beyond celebrating participation toward ensuring its meaningful impact represents a necessary step in modernizing political and party activities.

Ultimately, developing modern political life requires establishing an integrated framework of trust, participation, responsiveness, and accountability that begins within universities and local communities and extends to political parties, state institutions, and civil society organizations.

When young people are granted meaningful opportunities to contribute to public debate and decision-making, participation evolves from a formal procedure into a substantive political practice. Political dissent can then become an opportunity for institutional reform rather than a rupture in the relationship between citizens and institutions. Under such conditions, the development of political leadership becomes a natural outcome of an environment that enables young people to learn, disagree, propose alternatives, participate actively, and assume responsibility.

Conclusion

The themes examined in this paper demonstrate that modernizing political party life cannot be reduced to establishing new political parties, restructuring existing organizations, or increasing the representation of young people and women in political events and organizational positions. At its core, modernization represents a transformation in how politics is practiced: from membership to political citizenship, from presence to influence, from representation to empowerment, from traditional leadership to leadership renewal, and from seasonal political discourse to sustainable institutional engagement.

The overall discussion highlights that young people constitute one of the most critical dimensions of this transformation. They do not represent a homogeneous group, nor can it be assumed that they share identical attitudes toward political parties, politics, or public engagement. Similarly, the disengagement of some young people from party politics cannot be attributed to a single factor. Rather, it reflects the interaction of several dimensions, including political trust, institutional experiences, the nature of party structures, available opportunities, the capacity to exercise influence, and young people's own willingness to commit to organized political activity. Accordingly, any serious approach to youth political participation must prioritize listening to young people rather than speaking on their behalf, while seeking to understand the motivations underlying both participation and disengagement.

Political parties, in turn, bear a fundamental responsibility for ensuring that participation becomes meaningful. Opening membership to young people is insufficient unless accompanied by clear pathways for learning, engagement, and the gradual assumption of responsibility. Establishing youth and women's committees does not fulfill its intended purpose if these structures remain disconnected from actual decision-making processes. Similarly, organizing events, seminars, and political discussions cannot establish a sustainable political party if its engagement remains confined to electoral periods. A genuinely programmatic political party is one that enables its members to move beyond attendance and contribute actively to developing ideas, formulating proposals, implementing programs, and evaluating outcomes.

The development of political leadership cannot be achieved by bypassing essential stages of preparation and experience. Sustainable leadership requires a progressive pathway that begins with political education, continues through training, committee participation, and field engagement, and gradually advances toward positions of responsibility, decision-making, and leadership. At the same time, the experience accumulated by previous generations should not become a barrier to the advancement of younger individuals, just as youth should not automatically be regarded as replacements for established generations. What is required is a complementary relationship between experience and renewal, facilitating the transfer of knowledge across generations while simultaneously creating opportunities for emerging competencies.

The issue of student political participation further demonstrates that political trust is built through practical experiences and institutional interactions. Students who participate in elections, dialogues, or public activities assess the value of their voices through the outcomes of those experiences. When their demands become subjects of meaningful discussion and institutional follow-up, they are more likely to perceive participation as worthwhile. Conversely, when their engagement remains confined to ceremonial receptions and public recognition without substantive responses or explanations, a gap may emerge between the form and substance of participation. Therefore, addressing political disengagement should not begin by pressuring young people to return to participation, but rather by understanding the reasons for their withdrawal and rebuilding the conditions that make participation credible, meaningful, and influential.

At the local level, the importance of linking participation to authority and responsibility becomes particularly evident. Elected councils cannot function as effective instruments of development unless they possess genuine powers to plan, make decisions, and monitor local priorities. Consequently, decentralization and local participation should not be assessed according to the number of councils established or meetings held, but rather by the extent to which citizens can identify a tangible connection between their participation and decisions affecting their everyday lives.

Ultimately, the modernization of political party life cannot succeed if young people remain merely its public-facing representatives, if political parties continue to function as seasonal electoral structures, or if democratic rhetoric remains disconnected from internal institutional practices. Genuine modernization requires an environment that accommodates disagreement without exclusion, participation without marginalization, criticism without alienation, and renewal without disregarding accumulated experience. It also requires young people to recognize that political engagement is not a shortcut to leadership positions, but a responsibility demanding knowledge, sustained effort, organizational discipline, and long-term commitment.

Accordingly, the fundamental challenge facing political parties lies in retaining young people within political life as active participants capable of exercising meaningful influence. Conversely, the challenge facing young people extends beyond demanding access to senior positions; it also involves developing the competence, experience, and record of achievement necessary to assume such responsibilities effectively.

From this perspective, the pathway proposed by this paper can be summarized through a series of successive transitions: from presence to participation, from participation to influence, from influence to responsibility, and from responsibility to leadership. In parallel, political parties must move from recruitment to capacity development, from seasonal activities to institutional sustainability, from youth representation to genuine empowerment, and from advocating new leadership to actively cultivating it.

The future of political party engagement is not determined solely by political slogans or the number of individuals listed on organizational membership registers. Rather, it depends on the capacity of institutions to transform participation into practice, practice into experience, and experience into leadership. Equally important is the capacity of young people to transform available opportunities into sustained commitment and meaningful public engagement.

It is through the interaction of these two complementary pathways that the substantive features of political modernization emerge—modernization that is institutionally grounded, sustainable, and capable of fostering mutual trust among society, political parties, and state institutions.

 

Issued by Jordanian Masarat for Development and Progress