When the law prevails... and the question remains?

One of the most commendable developments recently has been the widespread response from citizens and residents to directives issued by the competent authorities regarding the removal of encroachments on state property.

Many chose to take voluntary initiative before the arrival of equipment or the implementation of enforcement measures. This civilized behavior reflects a growing awareness that respecting the law is not merely a reaction to punishment, but rather a commitment to the community’s right to protect its public assets.

The approach adopted by the relevant authorities also deserves praise. It was not a sudden, impulsive action, but rather a phased and clear process. It began with addressing the situation of makeshift shelters, followed by granting sufficient deadlines to rectify conditions and remove encroachments. Diwaniyas (community gathering spaces) were temporarily exempted out of respect for their social significance, before the authorities resumed operations to remove fences and other violations.

This approach combines firmness in enforcing the law with flexibility, giving people the opportunity to take initiative and correct their mistakes.

However, this positive scene does not preclude asking a question worthy of reflection: Why were these encroachments allowed to expand and become entrenched over many years, to the point where they became a familiar reality for some? Why were not monitoring tools activated earlier to prevent reaching this stage, which required significant efforts and substantial resources to address accumulations that could have been prevented from the outset?

Safeguarding state property is not a seasonal responsibility, but a permanent institutional duty that begins with early monitoring, continues with firm follow-up, and culminates in the fair and equal application of the law to all without exception.

Any delay in confronting violations multiplies the cost of addressing them and sends misleading messages that may encourage others to believe that transgressions can become established facts.

Society has proven itself to be a genuine partner when it encounters seriousness and clarity. The hope remains that this campaign will evolve into a sustainable institutional culture based on prevention before cure, monitoring before encroachment, and the rule of law before the accumulation of violations.

A strong state is not measured by the sheer volume of violations it removes, but by its ability to prevent them from arising in the first place, and by its capacity to safeguard public rights in a manner that enhances trust, justice, and the dignity of the system.