Introduction

This position paper offers an in-depth analysis of the role of Jordanian youth in political and partisan life, examined through the lenses of legislative pathways, institutional experiences, and practical realities on the ground. The issue extends beyond the mere existence of laws permitting youth participation; it concerns the extent to which these laws translate theoretical engagement into meaningful political action—capable of reshaping representation and enhancing youth influence within political parties and state institutions.

The paper focuses on exploring the gap between youthful aspirations and the opportunities available to them; between symbolic representation and genuine empowerment; and between theoretical training programs and lived political practice. It also sheds light on the shared challenges facing young people, including internal competition, entrenched traditional leadership structures, the role of political financing, and the absence of sustainable strategies for youth empowerment within party frameworks.

By deconstructing these challenges and examining existing empowerment tools, the paper seeks to provide objective insights that assist decision-makers, political parties, and youth themselves in formulating more effective approaches—approaches capable of producing tangible progress in the level and quality of youth political participation in Jordan.

Chapter One: Youth Political Participation Between the Legislative Framework and the Limits of Practice

This chapter begins by unpacking the distance between the legislative opportunities created by the political modernization process and the patterns of participation that have emerged in practice. The central question concerns the ability of legal texts to transform youth engagement into meaningful influence within party structures and representative institutions.

Since the launch of the Political Modernization Project in October 2022—and the subsequent enactment of new Election and Political Parties Laws—the state has appeared to move toward redefining youth as political actors rather than merely a demographic bloc. Yet practical implementation has revealed a gap between legal possibility and lived reality, particularly with regard to representation within political parties and Parliament, and mechanisms for influencing political decision-making.

First: Political Reform as an Enabling Framework, Not a Guarantee of Empowerment

The political modernization trajectory restructured the legal environment governing party work and opened the door to broader youth participation in terms of membership, engagement, and electoral involvement. However, this opening often remained formal unless accompanied by internal organizational transformations within parties themselves.

Legislation, by its nature, establishes opportunities but does not guarantee their realization. Parliamentary elections held under the new legal framework demonstrated that youth representation remained limited relative to their demographic weight—indicating that the transition from “permission to participate” to “empowerment to influence” requires more than textual amendments.

Second: Party Structures and the Challenge of Integrating Youth Actors

An examination of party experiences following political modernization reveals significant variation in parties’ capacity to integrate youth as organizational and political forces. Several parties entered the new phase with limited experience in managing youth frameworks, which was reflected in the roles available to young members—often confined to symbolic representation or partial participation.

Internal factors have further constrained effective empowerment, including traditional leadership patterns, limited spaces for initiative within party hierarchies, and the absence of cohesive youth blocs capable of influencing party decision-making. At the same time, many young members themselves have struggled to develop internal organizational and advocacy tools that would enable them to assert a stronger presence within sites of political action.

Third: From Symbolic Representation to Building Independent Youth Structures

More advanced party experiences demonstrate that placing young people in leadership positions is insufficient unless accompanied by the creation of structured youth frameworks endowed with a degree of operational autonomy. A party’s youth wing performs a critical function as a space for political training, the accumulation of experience, and the generation of future leadership.

Such organizational models enable young members to develop their own programs, engage in fieldwork, and participate in student and professional union elections—facilitating a shift from passive reception to active political engagement. Moreover, the presence of a coherent and clearly articulated political vision within the party constitutes a prerequisite for cultivating informed youth awareness capable of engaging substantively with public issues, rather than remaining confined to generalized mobilizational rhetoric.

Fourth: The University as the Primary Incubator of Organized Formation

The university environment represents the foundational arena for the formation of political awareness among youth. Yet the regulation of partisan activity within universities has remained subject to delicate balances between academic representation requirements and political considerations.

Recent amendments to student union election regulations have sparked debate regarding their implications: are they an attempt to ensure broader representation of faculties and academic disciplines, or do they reflect institutional caution toward the expansion of partisan activity within university spaces?

In either case, the university remains a central space whose role in preparing emerging political cadres cannot be overlooked—provided that an appropriate framework is established to balance political freedoms with academic stability.

Fifth: Civil Society Organizations Between Seasonal Empowerment and Political Pathway Building

Civil society organizations and donor agencies have played a visible role in offering training programs and activities under the banner of political empowerment. However, the impact of these initiatives has been subject to debate. Many programs have taken the form of short-term training interventions that did not necessarily translate into sustained engagement in partisan or public life.

This pattern of “seasonal participation” has produced a segment of youth engaged in workshops and training cycles without making a substantive transition into organized political action. This raises questions about the effectiveness of such programs and highlights the need for alternative approaches that link training to practice, and empowerment to tangible political trajectories.

Sixth: Between Official Discourse and Organizational Reality

At the level of public discourse, a clear orientation toward enhancing youth presence in political life has emerged, reflected in initiatives, programs, and institutions dedicated to youth engagement. Yet this orientation continues to encounter an organizational reality still under construction within political parties and intermediary institutions, where mechanisms for integration, qualification, and leadership progression remain incomplete.

The central challenge therefore lies in the slow pace of institutional transformation capable of converting declared political will into sustainable pathways for leadership production.

In this sense, the equation of youth participation in Jordan is defined at the intersection of three levels: a legislative framework that has opened opportunity; party structures that have yet to fully develop absorption mechanisms; and youth themselves as actors in formation, searching for their place between discourse and reality.

The foundational question for the chapters that follow thus becomes clear: Are we witnessing a transitional phase preceding genuine youth political ascent, or a reproduction of limited participation patterns—albeit through more modern mechanisms and more organized tools?

Chapter Two: Party Representation in Parliament and the Dilemma of Transitioning from Numerical Presence to Political Agency

This chapter shifts the discussion from youth participation within political parties to their position within the broader representative sphere—namely Parliament and elected bodies—where another gap emerges between representation as a numerical factor in an electoral equation and representation as an effective capacity to influence public decision-making and policy formulation.

The parliamentary landscape that followed the political modernization process demonstrated progress in party presence within the House of Representatives. However, this presence has not yet translated into a cohesive political bloc with unified voting behavior or a consistent legislative vision. Despite their numerical representation, parties continue to approach parliamentary work more as an extension of individual roles than as an organized collective endeavor.

First: Party Blocs Between Organizational Form and the Absence of Political Discipline

The current parliamentary experience reveals that party blocs have not yet reached a level of institutional discipline that would allow them to operate as integrated political units. Voting within the same bloc remains subject to individual discretion, divergent positions, and weak organizational commitment—limiting their ability to influence legislative and oversight processes.

This situation reproduces the pattern of “fluid blocs” in a more modernized form: the party structure exists, but mechanisms for regulating parliamentary behavior and formulating collective positions remain underdeveloped. As a result, party representation appears closer to symbolic presence than to organized political power.

Second: Youth Participation in Parliament… An Absence Beyond the Age Criterion

Weak youth representation is not merely a matter of age demographics; it is closely tied to the nature of opportunities available within the political process itself. Even when young individuals enter the electoral arena, they often remain on the margins—whether due to limited overall electoral turnout, low public participation rates, or the absence of organized youth pressure groups advocating broader representation.

Here, a complex equation emerges: a constitutionally strong Parliament facing performance challenges due to weak public participation, which in turn directly affects the quality of representation and particularly limits youth access to influential positions.

Third: Parties Between Recruitment Responsibility and Programmatic Weakness

Criticism in this context is directed at the parties themselves, which have yet to build recruitment systems capable of attracting and retaining young members. The phenomenon of rapid withdrawal from party membership after short periods reflects shortcomings in organizational culture, programmatic clarity, and leadership progression pathways.

In some cases, youth inclusion on electoral lists appeared to respond to formal or regulatory requirements rather than to a genuine conviction in their leadership role. This has deepened perceptions among many young people that their participation serves to fulfill legal conditions rather than to act as a real lever for elite renewal.

Fourth: Breaking the Psychological Barrier Toward Party Engagement

At the societal level, partisan engagement continues to confront a legacy of caution and skepticism accumulated over decades. Despite legal and political reforms encouraging party work, the psychological barrier has not yet been fully dismantled.

This hesitation is particularly visible within university environments, where initial political awareness forms but does not always translate into direct party affiliation. Many young people seek practical spaces for influence rather than traditional organizational frameworks perceived as lacking programmatic clarity or empowerment pathways.

Fifth: Empowerment Versus Inclusion… The Conceptual Gap Within Parties

Within party discourse, the term “empowerment” is frequently invoked, yet it often remains confined to training initiatives or symbolic participation, without evolving into genuine inclusion in decision-making processes. Young members may participate in seminars, activities, and programs, but their presence in leadership positions and policy formulation remains limited.

This reveals a conceptual gap: empowerment, understood as capacity-building, is expected to lead to inclusion, understood as participation in decision-making. However, this transition does not occur automatically; it requires genuine organizational will, clear leadership progression tracks, and openness to new ideas—even when they diverge from traditional party frameworks.

Sixth: The Student Experience as an Alternative Model for Leadership Production

In contrast to party stagnation, the student experience within universities appears more dynamic in producing young leadership. Student lists, through competitive environments, practical training, and expressive spaces, have contributed to developing skills in collective action, negotiation, campaign management, and program formulation.

This experience demonstrates that youth do not lack competence or motivation; rather, they lack political frameworks capable of absorbing and developing these capacities within a broader national pathway.

Seventh: Formation Before Empowerment… The Societal Dimension of Political Participation

Building youth political participation extends beyond parties to a deeper process that begins within the family, school, educational institutions, and media. Civic upbringing, democratic awareness, and skills in dialogue and collective action constitute essential foundations for any subsequent political empowerment.

Without such early formation, political engagement becomes an episodic act rather than a continuation of a gradual social and cultural trajectory. Responsibility here is shared between the state and society, and among educational and cultural institutions, in cultivating a generation that perceives political participation as a natural dimension of citizenship rather than an exceptional venture.

In this sense, the chapter reveals a central paradox: while the reform trajectory has created a legal structure permitting broader party and youth representation, the organizational and societal structures have yet to complete the conditions necessary to transform that representation into effective political power.

This leads to the foundational question for the following chapter: Does the shortcoming lie in political parties as intermediary institutions that have not yet matured, or in a political and social environment that has not fully prepared the conditions for transitioning from symbolic participation to deep democratic practice?

Chapter Three: Political Modernization and Youth Empowerment… From Legislation to Practical Reality

This chapter continues the dialogue on youth participation in political life by examining the relationship between formal legislation and actual empowerment. It highlights the lived experiences of young people within political parties and universities as authentic pathways that extend beyond numerical quotas or legal percentages.

First: Formation Before Empowerment… Integrating Youthful Energy with Senior Experience

Youth empowerment begins with gradual leadership formation. Young people possess significant enthusiasm and dynamism, while older generations carry institutional memory and accumulated expertise. The challenge lies in blending energy with experience to achieve balanced and sustainable outcomes—ensuring that youthful momentum is guided by institutional awareness.

Legislation alone is insufficient. It requires a formative societal environment that supports youth engagement, reduces fear and hesitation, and enables participation in parties and student lists without apprehension of exclusion or marginalization.

Second: Youth and Women Quotas in Parties and Elected Bodies

The new legal framework—whether in political parties or advisory councils—introduced quotas for youth and women. However, implementation on the ground remains limited. Moreover, responsibility for youth empowerment does not rest solely with political parties; it is a shared obligation of the state and its institutions, including schools, universities, legal frameworks, and broader social culture.

A supportive ecosystem is essential to transform formal representation into substantive participation.

Third: Practical Challenges Facing Youth Within Parties

Despite legally mandated youth quotas, young members often encounter constraints within party structures. These may include concentration of leadership positions among established elites, reliance on youth as instruments for fulfilling legal requirements, or limited space for genuine decision-making authority.

This reflects a practical gap in empowerment implementation: youth are sometimes treated as numerical complements rather than as strategic contributors to leadership bodies and policy formulation.

Fourth: The University Experience as a Practical Model of Empowerment

Universities represent a tangible arena for leadership experimentation and political engagement. Student lists provide opportunities to develop organizational skills, negotiation capacities, campaign management expertise, and program formulation.

This environment demonstrates that youth are capable of driving change when afforded meaningful space. The university model offers a microcosm of structured empowerment—one that could inform broader party practices if effectively integrated into national political pathways.

Fifth: Individual Initiative and the Importance of Courage in Participation

Youth advancement requires personal initiative and the courage to seize opportunities rather than waiting for traditional parties or established leadership structures to grant empowerment. Historical experiences—including liberation movements and waves of civic mobilization—illustrate that youth have often served as engines of transformation.

Participation becomes effective not through passive reliance on legislation, but through proactive engagement and organized collective action.

Sixth: A Balanced Assessment of Youth Engagement in Political Life

Despite persistent challenges, there are encouraging indicators. Politically aware and engaged young party members are increasingly participating in debate and decision-making processes. Political parties themselves remain in developmental stages, and youth can serve as internal catalysts for reform, strengthening representation and democratic practice from within.

 

Conclusion

This paper concludes that political and partisan empowerment of Jordanian youth remains a multifaceted challenge requiring coordinated efforts among youth, political parties, and state institutions.

Sustainable empowerment can only be achieved through combining individual ambition with structured institutional practice, adhering to fair competition principles, and developing enduring mechanisms for competence-building and political awareness.

Absent these conditions, youth participation risks remaining symbolic—while genuine opportunities for influence continue to be constrained by organizational and implementation gaps.

Issued by the Jordanian Masarat for Development and Progress
17 February 2026