I have been following developments in Britain for a long time. Perhaps this seems natural for someone who has spent part of his academic or professional life in contact with other cultures. Many of those who study abroad do not return with just a university degree; they also return with a sentimental attachment to the country and a deeper understanding of its society, institutions, and values. That is why countries with strategic vision are keen to host foreign students: they understand that building human and cultural bridges is a long-term investment whose value far exceeds many traditional investments.
To this day, I remain in contact with a number of German students who studied at Kuwait University in the 1970s and 1980s. I am also in touch with a number of Gulf nationals who were students at the time and who are now in influential leadership positions in their countries. These enduring relationships highlight that the best investment states can make is investment in people; even after graduation, these people remain attached to the country where they studied.
It is out of this interest in Britain that, whenever I have the opportunity, I make a point of watching Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons every Wednesday when Parliament is sitting. In that session, the observer sees a refined model of political debate: sometimes sharp questions, direct criticism, public accountability of the government, and no shortage of sardonic wit and wordplay. People may disagree over policies, but they rarely disagree over the legitimacy of the democratic system itself.
Everyone following political developments in Britain over the past decade sees that the political stability for which it was known is not there. In the space of a decade, the country has seen six prime ministers come and go (serving 20 months on average), a dynamic British political life has not known for decades. The latest of them is Sir Keir Starmer, who found himself facing a rebellion within part of his Labor Party, despite having led Labor to a sweeping electoral victory after 14 years out of power, or, as the British political expression has it, in the political wilderness.
Starmer took this in his last speech. I felt bad listening to him. The man was not perfect, and his government was not immune to mistakes, but many of the problems he faced were not of his own making. He inherited economic, social, and political problems that had accumulated for many years. His words seem to say that the life of a politician is short, not because Starmer failed in office but because the prevailing mood is conducive to punishing individuals without addressing the causes.
This is not only a British problem. It is a phenomenon extending across most of Western Europe. For years, political systems have been under mounting economic pressure, with rising living costs, rapid cultural and social changes, and growing anxiety over national identity and the future of the middle class. As a result, broad segments of the electorate are veering to the right, seeking salvation from accumulated crises. However, there is no solid indication in the modern political experience that the populist right has practical solutions, only a high capacity to mobilize popular anger and invest it politically. Many of these movements build their discourse on a simple idea: someone is responsible for your problems, and that someone is often the immigrant, the newcomer, or the person of a different culture, Muslims, for example.
A striking paradox emerges: among the groups most hostile to new immigration are immigrants who had arrived earlier, as though the problem is not immigration itself but fear of competition, or the desire to shut the door after passing through it.
Even more striking is that some prominent leaders in parties that adopt a hard-line discourse toward immigration themselves come from immigrant backgrounds. The leader of the British opposition is of Nigerian origin, while the deputy leader of the right-wing Reform UK is of Asian origin. This shows that the issue is no longer about ethnic origin so much as it is about investing social and political fears in electoral competition.
Populist parties often sell hope and promises. When they reach power, they discover that managing the economy, addressing the deficit in public services, achieving growth, and raising productivity are far more complex tasks than raising slogans. At that point, the gap begins to widen between promises and results.
And yet I still believe that British democracy is flexible and entrenched enough to overcome this phase. It has capable institutions, and it has survived greater crises in the past and emerged from them stronger. The real challenge today lies not in changing governments or individuals but in restoring confidence in the moderate center that made Britain stable for long decades.
What is most worrying is that the fall of moderation may become a prelude to the rise of a discourse that blames the other for everything. Societies stumble when they search for a scapegoat instead of confronting their problems with courage and reason. That is why Starmer's speech seemed to be that of a politician trying to defend this balance at a time when balance itself has become a target of attack.
A final word: a prudent state does not fear change of governments; it fears a change of institutions.
