It's fine if someone feels proud of himself, and speaks with pride about the things he’s achieved. That would be especially good if this person speaks from a standpoint of wanting to influence positive change to society, through a successful approach. But what if that person had no accomplishments based on which he positions himself as the savior, leading the public towards the path of reform?

It is obvious that I’m talking about the opposition, and it is also obvious that they’ve gone too far with their empty threats and promises. They deafen our ears with their nonstop talk about ‘heroism’, while their know-it-all attitude costs us billions of dollars in canceled projects. Even I, a longtime critic of the opposition, was convinced as a result of the opposition’s pressure that the government wasn’t clear regarding the K-Dow project at the time of negotiation. And now after the damage is done, they play innocent and put the blame on others. Is there a greater escape than this?

The K-Dow project, if allowed, would have left Kuwait facing many possibilities and those include loss or profit. But the opposition’s decision to cancel the deal left us with only one possibility: a loss exceeding $ 2 billion as per an international court order. At the time of negotiation, the opposition pressured to have the deal canceled on the pretext that the project was a failure. Can any of them come out now and explain exactly, from a technical standpoint, how the project is a failure? Can they explain to the public why losing two billion dollars is still better than going through an allegedly failed project? That is if we can find them after they avoid taking any responsibility.

However, this is nothing new with the opposition. It is the same group which claim protection of the constitution, but object to a ruling made by the Constitutional Court whose verdicts are final. It is also the same group which promised the Kuwaiti people reform that was never realized once they were in the driver’s seat in the parliament. Perhaps they could have passed legislations, if they had any time left after spreading divisions in society.

It’s obvious that we deal with a two faced opposition that calls for respecting the law and the constitution if the court makes a ruling in their favor, while leading mass demonstrations when the rulings are made against them.

As soon as the Constitutional Court ruled to reinstate the 2009 parliament, the opposition was quick to announce that they can never accept being part of a parliament they accuse of having a corrupt majority. But during the trial last week for the parliament’s raid incident, they confirmed being members of the 2009 when the judge asked them; leading the judge to abstain from pressing charges due to the immunity they have as members of the 2009 parliament. This is the two faced opposition we have. — Al-Rai