To be realistic, before the evening of Friday, May 10, we were aware of the path our nation had been following for nearly 60 years, as we had adopted a distorted form of democracy that differs from what is common worldwide. We realize how public affairs have been managed, as well as the foundations of internal political relations, and the detrimental impact this reality has had on both the economy and society. The question that needs to be calmly addressed is: Did we experience a political circus during that time, or did we genuinely have a functioning democracy? For now, we won’t delve into the factors that led to the adoption of this democratic system, the threats of invasion and occupation, or the numerous other issues that emerged on the eve of Kuwait’s declaration of independence. It would be accurate to say that only two or three national assemblies adhered to the norms governing democracies in the civilized world, while the others established a hybrid form of democracy that is unfamiliar even to nations with parliamentary systems.

Throughout those decades, the pursuit of individual gains prevailed, and corruption became institutionalized through policies and decisions that favored those in power. Elections were conducted according to the “what will you give us?” principle rather than adhering to parliamentary principles that emphasize the protection of the state and society, oversight, and legislation. This explains why we witnessed ministers resigning before being questioned, often when the Council of Ministers, attempting to shield their leader, abandoned them, or in response to threats of a no-confidence vote from certain lawmakers.

The National Assembly effectively became the de facto ruler. Any law not approved by the Amir was imposed by parliament. Any legislation he sought to pass was often rejected by lawmakers. We all remember the parliament’s rejection of the law granting women political rights in 2005. Lawmakers engaged in these abnormal practices by repeatedly paralyzing the nation and applying constant pressure on ministers and governments.

Despite the damage caused, they took pride in it, as it solidified their control over state institutions. They even went so far as to propose a draft law to prevent criticism of themselves or the National Assembly, effectively stifling calls for constitutional amendments. This was a manifestation of their approach to democracy, characterized by the mantra “pave the way for the strong” and the notion of “scratch my back, I scratch yours.” In such a situation, no government can function effectively, and no minister can fulfill their duties. Consequently, anyone who values their dignity has refrained from accepting ministerial positions. As a result, we have seen various controversial figures assuming roles in the government.

Some of them left the ministry to face imprisonment, some others have fled the country, and others are currently undergoing trials. This state of affairs has drawn widespread objection from the majority of Kuwaitis. As calls grew louder for constitutional reform, and amid the fervor of the so-called “Arab Spring,” we witnessed demonstrations for what was proclaimed as “homeland dignity” (the first and second).

By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times