A reshuffle opens one essential question: if, two years into the mandate, it is admitted that some ministers didn't work well enough and are therefore being replaced, then who bears the political responsibility for the lost time? Two years is a significant period in which reforms, infrastructure projects and systemic changes could have been carried out. Instead, the public gets an admission that part of the team failed to deliver the expected results. That raises a serious question: if almost a third of the government failed to deliver, who takes political responsibility for the two lost years? But beyond the question of who wasn't working, there is another, perhaps even more important question: who was overseeing the ministers these two years?

Responsibility doesn't lie only with those who didn't finish the job. It also lies with whoever chose them, gave them trust, and was supposed to monitor their work for two years.

That is why, beyond the question "who is being replaced?", the public has the right to ask: who was overseeing all this for two years, and why is it only now being established that some of them weren't working well enough?