IN the romantic concept of democracy, 51 percent of voters are considered as the ruling majority, ignoring the other 49 percent by describing them as the minority. However, in the modern concept of democracy, everyone must participate in decision-making.
Unfortunately, this sophisticated concept is not applied in Kuwait, because the basis here is that society was not ready for this form of governance due to its nature, culture, and inherited traditions. Therefore, what we are experiencing is an authoritarian parliamentary democracy, because it is practiced contrary to the aspirations of society.
This problem is the reason for the defects we are witnessing in the legislation and systems through which the dominant currents in the National Assembly work to subjugate society based on their vision and agendas, instead of the aspirations of people. This is done through strict laws, or by burdening public finances with a deficit through collective bribery of citizens, and changing the traditions and customs of society. They are limited to conditions that serve the interests of a specific minority, namely the parliamentarians, even if they are covered with a veneer of justice.
Therefore, the largest segment of the population has, to a large extent, ended up suffering from a deficit, either in living conditions, or constitutionally guaranteed natural rights, even in the freedom of expression. To prevent this freedom, a legal arsenal has been developed, starting with the Penal Code, newspapers and publications, and electronic crimes, all the way to audiovisual, all of which limit freedom of opinion.
Nonetheless, over the past three decades, Kuwait has witnessed a lot of soft repression. Some articles, as well as posts on Twitter later, were criminalized, with sentences reaching upto 70 years in prison, leading to the flight of many Kuwaitis abroad.
In this regard, it must be emphasized that it was the integrity of the judiciary and the mercy of the judges that prevented thousands of Kuwaitis from being thrown into prison because the parliamentary majority with multiple agendas drafted these laws to prevent their private parts from being exposed.
Hence, a serious question must be asked - How did one-eyed democracy benefit us? Did it really serve Kuwait, or was it a path towards backwardness and self-isolation, that contributed to undermining the economic concept upon which Kuwait was founded since ancient times?
On the other hand, haven’t countries that differ from us in their ruling system flourished and witnessed a great renaissance, because they quietly worked according to what their people required, and without the interference of personal and partisan agendas, due to which they enjoyed security, safety, and economic freedom?
It is true that when the late Abdullatif Thunayan presented the draft of the Constitution to the late Sheikh Abdullah Al-Salem, he said, “This is what the people of Kuwait agreed upon” but those men who were the protectors of the Constitution left, and others came who implemented a different Constitution and practiced various types of political fraud to impose their agendas?
In this regard, the impasse that Kuwait has been experiencing since 1986, which became entrenched after the liberation, has led to corruption being widespread to the extent that the breach has widened.
This is a natural result of misunderstanding a democratic practice that the New Zealand scholar Brian Ruber said, “It is a form of government that provides significant ways through which the majority of citizens can exercise a significant influence in decision-making and policies”. Unfortunately this did not happen in Kuwait.
Therefore, salvation from the impasse comes through a strong hand that puts things right, and does not cause a parliamentary majority to practice systematic abuse against the government, which is a minority in the simple sense of democracy. It also controls the people who are today being consumed by the fire of parliamentary tyranny.
By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times
