Corona and democracy
some are upset and others, including loved ones, blamed me for what i wrote yesterday about the necessity of self-accounting and how the government should take the initiative, dissolve the national assembly for a year or two, and carry out all required reforms as soon as possible before it is too late.
a friend wrote in a letter said the suspension of the constitution would result in the opposite of what i hoped for from the government. for example, in 1976 and 1986, when the national assembly was dissolved, the government did not carry out any significant reforms during the dissolution period.
the answer to the question of the honorable friend is simple, as much as it is complicated:
1 - our local, regional and international situation, even financial and demographics, is now unlike anything that was more than forty years ago.
2 - the psychological state of the government, its ability to spend, and internal and external challenges, compels it to do something in the area of urgent reforms known to everyone who is familiar with the situation.
3 - if any citizen chooses between an authoritarian and effective government and a worn-out democratic system in which tribalism, nepotism, corruption, and sectarianism take root every day, what would his choice be?
4 - if we were without this tasteless democracy, would the minister of health and the minister of interior perhaps be forced, or would they yield to the pressure of a group of mps of a certain sect, and send those coming from an infected area to their homes without subjecting them to quarantine, and expose the health of the nation and all its components to the risk of a deadly epidemic that could cripple the entire state, and us who are unable to depend on ourselves for just a week?
5 - whoever interfered and prevented people infected with a dangerous and contagious disease from being quarantined is the same one that imposed the appointment of his brother who holds fake academic certificates to assume the highest position in the ministry of education.
6 - the person who prevented the returnees from iran from being subjected to be quarantined is the same person who previously appointed his brother to be responsible for our nutritional health although he does not even know the difference between barley and a grain of wheat.
7 - the person who prevented his relatives and voters from being quarantined for only two weeks is the one who pressed for the appointment of dozens of fictitious certificate holders in various sensitive and dangerous positions that affect different aspects of life.
are all these acts, mediations and appointments, less dangerous and destructive to the nation than allowing those with a serious disease to go home?
why do people adhere to democracy and sacrifice a lot to achieve it? democracy means the rule of the people, and the nation being the source of power, meaning that it is against those who monopolize power and promote dictatorship.
it is a form of rule that allows a majority of citizens to exert some influence on the decision-making process. however, all this is not currently seen in kuwait appropriately.
also, the violations and breaches of the mps have become almost daily affairs which hinders even routine government work, not to mention financial corruption and amassing of unjustified wealth.
thus, for democracy to succeed, we need to have a social contract in which all components of society are unanimous because without this contract parliamentary democracy will suffer from a bout of paralysis, as is the case with us, because it is done in a way to benefit the society, and this is what i wrote in my article.
the other question: can ‘democratic guards’, for example, force the government to do what it does not desire? or stop the arrest of an innocent person, or unlawfully withdraw from the general reserve?
the answer is no to these questions and dozens of others, so it is time we stop bluffing each other and let the government take its own course.