Opinions have split between support and opposition toward any criticism directed at the “constellation.” Here, the constellation does not mean the “government” alone. Time and again, we have witnessed the legislative authority’s ability to enter directly into the details of the executive authority’s performance. The constellation, then, refers to the two authorities — executive and legislative — along with the unofficial shadow government, devoid of formal status yet possessed of networked influence.

There are submissive opinions and voices that repeat in complete obedience, “May Allah not change our condition.” They magnify the simplest achievements of that constellation, overlook its shortcomings, and, whenever possible, construct arguments and invent excuses in its defense. On the opposite shore, other voices rise in contradiction to the former. Their criticism follows every failure issued by that constellation, as though they deliberately turn away from any good in its actions — if any exists — and race to cast doubt, investigate, and search for any flaw that reveals the negative side of every achievement for which the street and public opinion have applauded in appreciation.

Amid the ambiguity and hidden motives surrounding both groups, one finds the silent segment, powerless and thirsty for any achievement that meets its needs and increases its chances of welfare. There is also another segment whose thinking is rooted in objectivity; what governs its alliances are the issues on which it finds collective agreement, keeping the public interest before its eyes as much as it can. Yet deviation from fairness and excess in hostility could only sow doubt in both of these groups, leaving each of them at the margins of hope, until they join those crowds — the supporters and the opponents — in pursuit of their interests and the fulfillment of their needs in an age of fleeting prosperity whose end has drawn near.

“May Allah not change our condition.” This group has long benefited in this era through foundations built on flattery and praise for what does not deserve praise, in order to satisfy what we have called the constellation. And “Leave!” — this group, having seen harm spread upon itself and upon those around it among the other children of this jungle, finds itself compelled to strive to become a support for the weak, a protector of their rights against that group which allowed itself to oppress the vulnerable in service of its ambitions and interests.

Even if the matter is relative, differing in its balance from one individual to another and from one time to another, what, then, has changed? Whether they wish it or not, Kuwait is now facing its era. It is living through a time in which decline is being recorded in its services, aspirations, and methods of internal administration, beyond what its budgets would justify. It has passed through periods when today’s opponent was an ally of the government, and other periods when today’s ally was an opponent of that same government. Standards may differ and people may change, yet the issues remain the same, and the scene repeats itself. Some benefit from it, while the nation loses — a nation they have turned, through the barbarity of their actions, into a jungle in which they strike without judgment of reason or logic.

The diversity imposed by human nature and by the principles from which people proceed divides them between elevated morals, rationality, and logic, and the exact opposite of all that. Between love and hatred, appreciation and denial, giving and negligence, sacrifice and ingratitude, generosity and stinginess, loyalty and betrayal, contentment and greed, people take on different colors according to their dispositions, personalities, and the forces governing their consciences. Yet this diversity has no right whatsoever to be handed the banner of participation in governing the nation. What must govern such diversity in managing this country is the political system.

The flaw does not necessarily lie in you personally if you are a member of that constellation and have contributed to corruption. Nor does it lie entirely in the opponent who goes to excess in hostility, whose argument was not clear until his issues were diagnosed. Rather, the flaw lies in the executive-legislative system that, through its deficient legal framework, permitted the constellation to do what is corrupt — by the standards of reason, logic, and accepted norms — corruption that it may itself view as justified by the public interest. Such actions may serve certain issues, but at the same time they harm issues of greater depth. It is a system that makes it easy to redirect public power toward private interests.

To be continued...

How does understanding the factor of the future help explain public debate?

Debate supports reform when it seeks evidence and results; it obstructs reform when it becomes accusation, denial, or short-term gain. It should therefore be read through the future, cost, results, and added capacity, not through intention alone.

How does understanding the factor of the future help explain living standards and productivity?

Living standards cannot remain stable without real productivity, because welfare funded externally or by a depleting resource remains vulnerable. It should therefore be read through the future, cost, results, and added capacity, not through intention alone.

How does society and incentives in rentier economies affect Kuwait?

Its effect appears in how costs, incentives, and resources are managed, and in Kuwait's ability to turn decisions into sustainable value. The direct context is polarized loyalty and opposition in Kuwait, arguing that systemic flaws—not individuals alone—enable corruption and decline.

How does understanding the factor of the future help explain rentier culture?

Rentier culture links gains to the state more than to production, making reform look like a threat rather than a necessary transition. It should therefore be read through the future, cost, results, and added capacity, not through intention alone.