The government did well in announcing revisions and amendments to the draft amended Social Security Law, in response to the negative feedback it had received—feedback that quickly escalated into a broad political and media mobilization protesting several of the bill’s core provisions.

 

Prime Minister Jaafar Hassan, who possesses extensive experience in public service, government administration, and bureaucracy, quickly grasped the scale and implications of the campaign. He fully understood that it could snowball—especially once the media ceiling was raised, even within state-affiliated outlets. Rather than digging in his heels, as many politicians have done—often paying a heavy price for misreading the political environment and public reactions—he chose not to confront public opinion or parliament. Indeed, during his recent meeting with the Mithaq Party bloc, he had already signaled his intention to review the submitted draft.

 

The first major lesson from this episode is the importance of deep political dialogue and of soliciting expert input from outside the governmental ecosystem—from professional associations, civil society, and technocrats. This role was largely undertaken by the Economic and Social Council, which held dozens of meetings and consultation sessions with diverse social groups and constituencies, ultimately presenting 61 recommendations to the government. The paradox, however, lay in the speed with which the draft law was forwarded to the government at the very same time the Council’s outputs were submitted. It would have been far more appropriate to deliberate on these recommendations jointly and benefit from the expertise and perspectives generated through the Council’s consultations—particularly since many of the experts who later publicly criticized the amended law had participated in those very dialogues.

 

There are laws—such as Social Security, Landlords and Tenants, and Taxation—where the government’s role is closer to that of an “intervening variable” rather than a direct party to the conflict. This is because such legislation revolves around two principal dimensions: first, the socio-economic balances between different social forces and groups; and second, public trust in government institutions and in the transparency of law- and decision-making processes.

 

In the case of Social Security, for example, the government identified a significant looming problem based on periodic actuarial studies conducted by the Social Security Corporation. Notably, this issue had been flagged in earlier phases, and successive governments had adopted multiple approaches to address it. Accordingly, the current government proposed amendments aimed at safeguarding the institution’s funds and ensuring its long-term sustainability; it has no vested interest in siding with one social group against another.

 

Here lies the crux of the matter: legislation with direct socio-economic ramifications that affect citizens’ daily lives must be subject to broad, in-depth debate and anchored in societal, political, and national consensus. There is no need to rush such laws. Rather, they should be given sufficient time for deliberation, preparation, consensus-building, and dialogue—ultimately producing solutions that satisfy the broadest possible constituencies and generate defenders of the law rather than opponents.

 

The golden lesson, however, lies in what this episode reveals about the “chronic weakness” and wide gap in the media sphere, and the failure to take media preparation seriously in the formulation of laws and policies and in presenting them to public opinion. This includes crafting objective and responsible messaging, identifying priority narratives, managing strategic media leaks, and building a comprehensive “media plan” that maps supporters, opponents, and neutrals—and determines how to engage each group—before a draft law is submitted to parliament or a major decision is taken.

 

What we hope now is that the government will proceed deliberately in approving the newly announced amendments—submitting them to experts and political actors, including those who criticized the revisions, engaging them in discussions on potential solutions, and involving the media intelligently in the ongoing debate. The goal should be to return with a more consensual draft backed by broader societal and expert support. The Prime Minister’s pledge yesterday before parliament to open wide discussions with parties, unions, and diverse social forces should remain firmly in place.

 

We also urgently hope that this lesson will be applied to the new Local Administration Law. It should not remain shelved for long, only to be sprung suddenly upon public opinion, political parties, and social forces. It is essential to move it now to the Economic and Social Council and begin deep consultations around it—learning from what happened with the Social Security Law. One of the defining strengths of political systems, as the renowned American political scientist and communication scholar Karl Deutsch argued, lies first in their ability to build effective channels of communication, and second in their capacity to learn rapidly from experience.