In Saudi Arabia, the finance minister has served since 2016. In the UAE, the energy portfolio has been held by the same minister since 2013. Regardless of how one views these systems, administrative continuity has helped turn plans into execution. Kuwait, by contrast, frequently changes key portfolios before strategies can mature. Each new minister inherits unfinished work and incentives to restart rather than complete.

This does not always reflect bad ideas. It reflects a structure that rarely gives ideas the time, authority, and performance benchmarks needed to succeed or fail clearly. For foreign dignitaries and international investors, frequent turnover makes commitments harder to interpret. It raises questions about who owns the plan, and whether today’s assurances will survive the next reshuffle.

For years, parliament was the default explanation for chronic reshuffles, with oversight tools often turning into political warfare. With parliamentary politics now absent, the more important question is unavoidable. Why does instability persist, and why are top roles treated as rotation rather than responsibility?

For Kuwait, comparison should not be seen as an insult, but treated as a valuable diagnostic tool. Without continuity, development becomes a sequence of resets, and progress falls behind ambition. Otherwise, visions stay on paper, promises outpace delivery, and aspirations never become policy results.