A critique of pre-election criticism, weak state administration, and the social mentality that must change before real institutional reform can begin.
The scene repeats itself. We live through the same days again, with their political, economic, athletic — and perhaps even moral — disturbances. These are days we know well, arriving at their familiar time shortly before National Assembly elections, when the ceiling of criticism is raised. Some see this criticism as a means to correct a path in service of public affairs, yet in most cases it becomes a means toward other ends that have nothing to do with the public interest — and may even harm it — for the sake of personal interests that have taken root and borne for us visible dilemmas.
A doctor distinguished in the field of medicine criticizes poor administration in state institutions with such self-assurance that one might imagine him a seasoned chief executive — though he is far from it. An economic researcher specialized in financial analysis ventures into intentions, mentions false accusations and naïve conclusions, relying on sovereign fund figures while impersonating a federal investigator. And others — experts in marital life, public relations, and sports — offer sharp opinions on every issue outside their fields of expertise, using methods devoid of chivalry, seeking to diminish authority and prove its weakness.
On the other side, state institutions suffer from administrations and competencies of a pitifully modest standard, formed by a bureaucratic system and legislative shortcomings, until they began consuming themselves from within. Today, in their weakness, they are unable to silence mouths except through other means equally devoid of chivalry: favoritism, deception, and corruption, all in pursuit of preserving that pathetic continuity.
Yes, we believe that the majority of administrations in state institutions are modest in capability. We are certain they are unable to keep pace with the changes of the age and the region, and that they will not be able to grasp the importance of reform for the future of coming generations. Yet at the same time, we possess an awareness greater than that previous belief: that most fronts of criticism, across most fields, are equal to state institutions in their modesty — if not far below them.
And this is not surprising. Rather, it is natural for minds to converge and resemble one another wherever they may be positioned, whether on the fronts of state institutions or on the fronts of criticism mentioned above. All of them exist within one social sphere, and it is very possible for those modest minds to have the loudest voices, because they represent the overwhelming majority.
The issue, sir, is not rooted in a limited number of individuals, but in a social mentality that must be replaced for the sake of reform. It is a mentality that practices criticizing error and praising benefit wherever its source may be, even if the critic disagrees with the origin of that source. The reform intended here, sir, seeks to replace this mentality through bold change.
When the leader is freed from his political constraints, when the security of his position is shaken according to the modesty of his competence, and when the qualified and deserving rise within institutional work inside state institutions, you will find no one, whoever they may be, directing criticism at those institutions for political gain. Their political objective will not be achieved, because society’s confidence in those institutions will have risen. There, conditions will change, and the critic will transform from one driven by criticism itself into one driven by genuine reform, stripped of modest political aims that know no path to the coordinates of public affairs.
How, then, can we say, “We blame our time, though the fault lies in us; and our time has no fault but ourselves”?
Abdullah Al-Salloum
Thoughtful messages and inquiries are always welcome. Send a message
Sparks
The issue, sir, is not rooted in a limited number of individuals, but in a social mentality that must be replaced for the sake of reform.
What does the factor of institutions reveal about institutional reform?
Institutional reform becomes difficult when interests, administrative habits, and weak accountability accumulate; it needs lasting rules, not scattered decisions. Through the angle of institutions, the result appears not only in declared language, but in the policy’s ability to change incentives and outcomes.
What does the factor of institutions reveal about legal loopholes?
Legal loopholes give corruption a safe path within the text of rules, so reform needs precise drafting and institutional oversight. Through the angle of institutions, the result appears not only in declared language, but in the policy’s ability to change incentives and outcomes.
How does social mentality and institutional reform affect the economy?
Its effect appears in how costs, incentives, and resources are managed, and in the economy's ability to turn decisions into sustainable value. The direct context is pre-election criticism, weak state administration, and the social mentality that must change before real institutional reform can begin.
What does the factor of institutions reveal about governance and reform?
Governance makes reform executable because it defines responsibilities, closes loopholes, and links decisions to accountability. Through the angle of institutions, the result appears not only in declared language, but in the policy’s ability to change incentives and outcomes.