Democratic governance of Kuwait

Democratic governance of Kuwait

Democratic governance of a country thrives when leaders embrace traits such as honesty and integrity. Democracy denotes a system of leadership characterized by a fair representation of all groups in the nation’s administration. More importantly, democratic dispensation works when all citizens have equal rights to vote and choose their representatives. The process must transparently take place to minimize the influence of the personal interests of politicians, parties, and business persons. The actions of these groups often compromise the pursuit and substance of free and independent institutions that exist to protect democracy. By intervening to influence election outcomes, leaders stir controversies and scandals that derail nations from the path to socio-economic growth. Often, these instances reveal the corruptible nature of structures and institutions trusted by the public to uphold the law of the land. Therefore, the different motivations behind the scandalous actions remind the people of the need to retain and exercise their power.

Kuwait has made efforts to stand out as one of the relatively democratic countries in the Arab world. Despite its location in a volatile region, the country continues to flourish. The system of government in Kuwait is a monarch that consists of royalty members who serve in different governmental positions. An emir of the Sabah family is the head of government in the country. While the nation has enjoyed peace compared to other states in the Gulf region, the citizens continue to demand change in the administration. One of the methods that the leaders use to offer half a solution to the needs of the people is allowing elections to take place regularly. For instance, in 2013, the nation organized parliamentary elections on 27th July. The election took place in the country after holding another election eight months earlier. Through these parliamentary elections, the nation continues to appease citizens who have lost trust in the government. Thus, it curtails democracy to an extent.

The Kuwait corruption scandal triggered the usual response from the government. Despite the widespread publication of the details surrounding the payment of 16 MPs, the emir was hesitant to take action. According to news sources, the money was compensation for their support of policies proposed by the ruling family. To the rest of the citizens, it was a realization that leaders do not have the interests of the people at heart. The scandal served as an awakening call as it rallied people to protest against the government. Instead of holding those involved in the crime responsible and making them pay like the average citizen, parliament got resolved. The government did not strive to address concerns raised by the protestors. The emir remained hesitant to speak about the allegations until the people’s anger escalated. By calling for fresh elections and failing to act on the charges, the government did not offer an effective solution that would restore public faith in the leadership.

The dissolving of parliament and conducting new elections do not necessarily improve public confidence in a government mired by such a scandal. Elections without democracy do not divert the citizenry’s attention from the controversies that depict the greed and inhumanness of their leaders. As the Arab Spring swept through the Gulf, the government realized that it had not regained public trust. The nation experienced tensions fueled by increasing demand for transparency and accountability. The people remained focused on the scandalous nature of politicians who seek office for personal gain. Political scandals cause distraction as the accused struggle to put out fires to save their reputation. They divert attention away from urgent socio-economic matters. Political scandals irk the citizenry as witnessed in Kuwait and can throw a nation into disarray. A riled-up nation can rally to advocate for better radical reforms and end up tearing the country apart as witnessed in the uprisings. By failing to prioritize national interests and handle the scandal appropriately, Kuwait lost the people’s trust. Hence, the government lost the citizens’ much-needed support.

The failure of the government to erase the doubts of the people created room for tension to increase. The citizens were aware that their issues remained unaddressed. The 2011 protests that accompanied the discovery of the corruption did not result in the anticipated changes. Ignoring the people’s concerns and focusing on cover ups would later escalate tensions in the country as controversies about power struggles leaked to the citizenry. The fights between the cabinet appointed by the emir and the MPs elected by the people intensified. Another scandal that further eliminated public trust in the government was video footage of a plot to stage a coup. The plan to overthrow the administration created the impression that leaders only pursued personal goals. These scandals threatened the stability of the country as botched parliamentary sessions and dissolutions increased. The emir also was on the spotlight for the several reshuffles within the cabinet. Therefore, the apparent protection of royal members and allies from facing charges of corruption heighten the people’s motive to demand for change and questioning of the government’s authority.

When political scandals occur, systems stop and pay attention to much publicized details aired by the media. These events take the spotlight away from crucial activities and duties due to their popularity. Whereas scandals discover media coverage since they affect the people directly, media coverage of the incidents can generate too much interests than politicians can handle. As discussed, due to the corrupt nature of leaders involved in the scandals, their first instinct is to hide the truth. They focus on protecting their reputation and overlook their duty to the nation and citizens. The government gets caught up in the process of denying, dismissing, or concealing facts that it fails to fulfill its mandate to the people. For instance, in the aftermath of the scandals that rocked Kuwait’s leadership, the nation almost came to a standstill. Service delivery slowed down as the country’s focus shifted to analyzing the scandals and their implications.

In more democratic countries such as the US, the occurrence of a scandal results in inquiries and commissions that spend a lot of time discussing the event and distorting facts, It is a process that does not yield meaningful result as expected. Institutions designated to serve the people become tied up in investigations and hearings that end up freeing the accused with a slap on the wrist. In Kuwait, the impact of the scandals affected the nation at large. Politicians and MPs could not pursue their development agendas due to the political scandals. The nation experienced stalling of vital development projects and critical infrastructure due to the falloutsXXX. For instance, MPs boycotted parliament sessions and the sittings lacked quorum to pass essential legislation. Also, the declaration of parliament as invalid and attempts to silence those opposing the regime devastated the country. The disputes fueled by disagreements over the royals’ interference with parliament also led to resignations. Ministers serving the dockets of Finance and Social Affairs and Labour had to leave office. As a result, uncertainty ensued about the fate of the nation as citizens lost their faith in the regime.

The US has faced relatively similar problems such as loss of public confidence in the leadership due to scandalous events that portray the lack of morals among politicians. The Clinton scandals such as the real estate investigation and the Lewinsky affair tested the integrity of the people’s representatives and government institutions established to uphold the rule of law. For instance, the Whitewater investigation commenced in 1994 and lasted for years without a coming to conclusive end. It dominated news briefings and disseminations as the people invested in the proceedings. Despite costing a significant amount of taxpayers’ money for investigations, the president did not face charges. The investigators could not find conclusive evidence that the leader and his family was part of the housing development scam. The public followed these proceedings which distracted the nation from vital problems such as the increasing terror threat that faced the US.

Similarly, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal highlighted the incompetency of the people’s representatives. The president had failed to uphold a moral code that defines the foundation of the nation. By engaging in an affair with Lewinsky, a White House intern, he had violated his duty to the family and nation. During the length of the investigations and accusations, the media and the public obsessed about the allegations. The media was wild with reports. Some were true and others sought to maximize viewership. Notably, Bill and Hillary Clinton denied the affair. For a long time, the president was adamant that he did not have sexual relations with LewinskyXXX. However, investigators tabled sufficient evidence of the affair. He admitted, apologized, got impeached, but remained office courtesy of the Senate. The scandal highlighted the shortcoming of the nation’s system and made people to doubt and critique the government’s decisions.

The depth of the scandals that have rocked the US political scene have exposed the lengths that politicians go to protect individual interests and reputations. By distracting the media and citizens from the truth, leaders figure out how to avoid being held accountable for violating the law. The Iowa caucus scandal has also exposed the role played by political and economic interests among decision makers. By allowing the state to conduct the caucus voting using unreliable and untested technology, the Iowa Democratic Party leaders failed the public. The scenario witnessed is evidence that the first reaction to a mishap is providing half-truths while figuring out plausible answers for the media. The contradictory statements offered by party officials highlighted the inconsistency of representatives to observe due diligence. Thus, the system failure comprised a key vote necessary for the people’s pursuit of democracy and right to choose leaders.

Overall, scandals that rock different countries expose how leaders and institutions respond. While the citizens become curious to see how the event unfolds, scandals generate publicity encouraged bv the media’s portrayal of the incidents. As people follow and react to the scandalous details that hit the airwaves, their reaction varies. Some support the accused whereas others demand for justice and change. Amidst the chaos, the true character of the politicians and the government becomes evident to the public. Obsessing about the scandals diverts nations from key developmental agendas as politicians cannot perform their duties to their people. It also reveals how much leaders protect and serve each other’s interests at the expense of the people. Consequently, scandals erode public trust in the government