This post has been read 11337 times!
Usually satellite TV channels host distinguished personalities for talk shows. Usually, the program presenter is distinguished in his/her field and is an equal of the guest.
The matter has changed in the recent times; the presenter of the program appears weak in his/her knowledge of the subject, so is forced to remain silent when the host tells a bunch of lies who goes on to falsify history claiming it was said by someone who died years ago, and when the presenter nods his head in agreement what the guest said gets credit because the presenter has neither political experience nor understanding of what was mentioned in front of him, leaving room for the guest to wreak havoc in history.
One of the beautiful things is the keenness of the Gulf channels to host speakers from Kuwait, and the number of these, historically, was equal to, if not more than, the number of all those hosted from other Gulf countries, with the beginning of a recent change in the ratio in favor of Saudi Arabia.
The reason for this demand for the Kuwaiti speaker is his boldness because of the relatively wide margin of freedom that he has always enjoyed in his homeland, and which is guaranteed by the social contract that links the leadership to the people which is the constitution.
This freedom, which is closely related to Kuwait and its people has recently become, in the view of some, a matter that must be disposed of, and this cannot be achieved without destroying democracy and burying its constitution with it, on the pretext that our backwardness in every field is caused by democracy and that the progress and prosperity of our sister countries is caused by the lack of democracy, and this is a distortion of the situation and we should not talk about it at all, let alone believe it.
Our backwardness and gradual decline in almost every field, after we were at the forefront in almost every field has nothing to do with the constitution of the state, and we must not allow it to be amended, as some demand.
What Kuwait achieved throughout its modern history was thanks to its constitution and political system. It is the person, whom we referred to above, that is important, not buildings and bridges, and the fault is not in the constitution, but in the way of understanding its texts, and the way the state is managed by successive governments.
Democracy was the reason for the progress of most countries in the world, and its absence was the reason for the backwardness of others, and the exceptions in both cases are not worthy of mention.
If the constitution is suspended, as some demand, and the administration remains the same, will anything change? The answer is, of course, a big NO.
Nothing prevented the administration itself from achieving what it wanted during periods when the National Assembly was absent or idle. Despite this, we did not see any real achievement other than the unjustified spending in order to preoccupy people with trivial matters.
Leave our constitution to us before something worse comes to us, and we regret the past and the future, and we must know our situation well and where we stand, know our flaws, know the framework of our freedoms, and know our limits.
If the constitution is done away with, all these things will go with it, and talking about it pushes us, and does not drag us, to the constitution of Jeddah.
To be continued…
By Ahmad alsarraf