 Democracy is a standard and repetitive human cycle. It all starts off totally ideal as it emerges from bondage. Entrenched with faith and growing unity, the people courageously rise against those who oppress them, searching for freedom. Upon reaching liberty, democracy is brought in to structure the governance of a nation, hence allowing for abundance to be achieved, while at the same time, liberty, equality, and representation for all is guaranteed. But then, something goes wrong and selfishness and complacency take over the state of being. Freedoms become restricted and independence controlled, leading to a point of no return, when dependence is achieved by the government taking full control. And then, it starts all over again. In today's modern era, many nations lay claim to the title the most successful democracy in the world. The United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan would be a few of these. But all these nations can come close to one nation that sits between a trio of nations so far removed from the democratic process. And it's not Israel in case that's who you're thinking of. This nation can state that its democracy is the most successful and effective democracy in the world. And that's Kuwait. But let's get the immediate barriers that disagree with my chain of thought out of the way. Is Kuwait a democracy? Yes, it is a form of a democratic nation that affords citizen participation, equality, transparency, regular and fair elections, economic freedom, and a bill of rights within a simple yet advanced constitution. But Kuwait has an emir, you'd say, an executive monarch with significant power. Yes, but so did the United Kingdom late into the 19th century. They had a powerful king. Did that make their democracy defunct? Or in the United States, when democracy didn't afford equality to all, neither women nor minorities could vote. Was the USA not a democracy until all could vote? I believe you would agree that regardless of these opposing conditions, these nations were still pretty much democracies. Kuwait, unbeknownst to the world, has a democracy that does what no other highly respected democracy does. It efficiently and expeditiously, from both a time and action perspective, relays the will of the people onto those in power like no other nation. If the people's will is to have no taxes, then there will be no taxes. If the people want to retire early while also being paid a life-changing grant, then so be it. It can be done. If the people want to have more vacation time or travel accompanying a sick relative at the nation's expense, then it is done. The mechanism for this is the same as in any other democratic nation. Constituents have demands and priorities, and they relay them to those seeking office or are currently a member of parliament. The members of parliament, MPs, will push for this agenda in any way, shape or form, so that their constituents are both happy and content when elections come round again. Two things can happen if the needs of the constituents are not realized. The first is that the politician who had not delivered on his promises to his constituents will fail at the upcoming elections. But the more applicable reality is when the MP makes sure that the requests and demands of his constituency are met favorably by the various executive arms of government. If they aren't gained, then their respected minister will face interrogation, pressure to either succumb to the demands of the MP and the expectations of his constituency or else face a no-confidence vote. Over the last 10 years, holding government ministers accountable for their lack of submission to MP's demands is reflected in the huge number of ministerial politicized interrogations that have taken place, 65 in total, meaning that each year, six to seven ministers were questioned aggressively to answer for their performance or lack thereof. How many nations can claim that their democratic system is as efficient when it comes to the will of their people? Do constituencies around the democratic world even come close to the power that Kuwaitis yield through their democratic rights? Kuwait, in fact, is so democratic that it votes more often than any nation around the world. Over the last 20 years, Kuwait has had 11 parliamentary elections, meaning that every 20 months, Kuwaiti citizens celebrate their so-called democratic wedding by voting for new members who are to represent them. Woe unto those who did not deliver on their promises and duties. The reality is that Kuwait's voters are so powerful that they can will and have stopped the development of a nation in order for them to benefit from tapping into the nation's wealth and fiscal planning, regardless of the substantial welfare conditions that they actually enjoy and have enjoyed throughout its short history. For them, priorities are all about the here and now, and democracy is there to serve this purpose. Who cares about the country or the future? So how can Kuwait that is labeled a monarchy truly be one if parliament, i.e. the people, can cripple any progress mandated by the monarch or his appointees? Standards over the years have dropped so low in terms of infrastructure and services, yet any decisions or measures taken by the executive branch to improve conditions are met with resistance unless a certain Kuwait pro quo conditions are met. And although Kuwait has pride in the fact that it has a strong and successful democracy in terms of its ability to voice the will of the people, many look around the Arabian Gulf wondering what if neighboring nations that don't even want to apply democratic systems have flourished far beyond Kuwait and now enjoy a higher standard of living prosperity and nationalism. For Kuwait, was having a democracy a good thing? The jury is still out on this question, but one thing is for certain, democracies evolve and such change shifts democracies from being good to being bad and back towards good again. And if we look at what are considered the major democracies of today, the situation is not good. The power is not with the people. It is reserved for the very few.