International Day of Democracy, celebrated on 15 September each year, is an opportunity to assess the state of democracy around the world, and more pertinently, why this form of government has failed to take hold in the Arab world. Even in Kuwait, where a quasi-democracy has taken a tentative hold since the country’s independence in 1961, it has at best become a model for a dawdling democracy that has not risen to expectations in meeting the aspirations of people.
It is an anomaly that while there has been a growth in the democratization process worldwide, democracy has by and large failed to find a foothold in this part of the world. That there is not even one fully democratic nation in the Arab world is as much a sign of disquiet over the results of recent Western attempts to implant democracy in the region, as it is a telling demonstration of how conservative traditions and religious dictates continue to hold sway over the Arab world.
In Kuwait the vestiges of democracy began to sprout as early as the 1930s and this eventually led to elections being held among members of erstwhile influential families to the 1938 legislative council. In a probable harbinger of how future politics would evolve in Kuwait, the legislative council was dissolved the very next year by the then ruler Sheikh Ahmed Al-Jaber Al-Sabah. Following abrogation of the protection treaty with Great Britain and the country’s emergence as a fully independent nation in 1961, the 11th ruler and first Amir of Kuwait, Sheikh Abdullah Al-Salim Al-Sabah once again led the nation along the path of democracy.
The country soon witnessed the development of political institutions, adoption of a Constitution, and elections to the 50-seat unicameral National Assembly. The Constitution, which has guided Kuwait’s democratic march for the past six decades, emphasizes that people are the source of power, establishes roles for the three branches of government — the executive, the legislative and the judiciary — as well as espouses the principle of separation of powers between the three entities.
Since then, elections have been held almost regularly to elect members to the parliament, but just as regularly the assembly has been dissolved by orders of the Amir, due to conflicts between the elected parliament and appointed executive.
More than half of the elected assemblies since independence have been dissolved, and frequent cabinet reshuffles have led to the swearing-in of 38 cabinets, so far. In the latest round, following elections held in December 2020, and the oath-taking of Kuwait’s 16th National Assembly on 15 December, the parliament witnessed one of its shortest-lived sessions. Less than a month after they were sworn-in, the cabinet submitted its resignation over opposition demands to grill the prime minister.
In Kuwait’s semi-democratic set up, the Amir appoints the prime minister who then selects his cabinet of ministers to form the government. The current cabinet, which took office in March, 2021 is once again headed by His Highness the Prime Minister Sheikh Sabah Al-Khaled Al-Hamad Al-Sabah, who has now headed three governments since 2019.
The December 2020 elections with a turnout of around 70 percent, saw the emergence once again of a strong opposition bloc. Just 19 of the 43 incumbents who ran for parliamentary seats were returned, with nearly half of the legislators who won aligned with opposition groups, and 29 tribe-affiliated lawmakers — their highest number in parliament since 1992 — making it through in the polls. Traditionalist opposition members, whether tribalists or Islamists, who form the bulk of opposition members were clearly the winners in the election.
Though 29 women ran in the elections, none won; perhaps reflecting deeply entrenched societal attitudes and traditionalist views against women running for office. And, although 30 candidates who won elections are under the age of 45, hopes among youth of reforms and a breath of fresh air in parliament were soon dashed, as most of the young cohort of legislators share staid views on reforms. None of this portends to a smooth sailing for the government in the 16th legislative term of parliament. Cooperation and consensus between the executive and legislative branches on issues of importance remain as elusive as it was before.
Prevailing estranged relations between government and parliament have reiterated that frequent suspensions and dissolutions of parliament, repeated cabinet reshuffles, and snap elections, do not change the political dynamics of the state.
While it is to the credit of the governing system that it has over the years proven pliant enough to accommodate diverse opposition groups and views into the country’s political process, it has not furthered the progress of democracy or development of the country. Some would profess that the strained relationship between parliament and government are signs of an immature democracy in the making, but 60 years is still a definitely long time to be baking democracy into the national psyche.
If anything, these democratic dilly-dallies have only served to underline the shortcomings of democracy as practised in Kuwait, disheartening many people within the country, as well as Kuwait’s well-wishers in the outside world. More importantly, the pursuit of a dithering democracy in Kuwait has come at the expense of much-needed economic, financial and administrative reforms, and highlighted the country ‘s inability to move forward on the path of progress and development.
Despite these democratic shortcomings in the political sphere, Kuwait has been seen by some purveyors of democracy as a beacon of hope in a region beset with geo-political upheavals, where autocratic regimes have for the most part held sway throughout history. If Kuwait’s democratic credentials hinge on holding regular elections, having an opposition that thwarts government waywardness, providing conditional freedom of assembly and speech, and the ability to voice opinions through a relatively free and vocal media, then yes, Kuwait could be considered a poster-child of democracy.
But, if stakeholders interested in promoting democracy in the region see Kuwait as a model of people’s participation and representative government, and consider the country as an alluring exemplar of the virtues of democracy and democratization, they would be sadly mistaken. Showcasing Kuwait as the paragon of democracy is not the best of ways to draw adherents to this form of governance; if anything, it could serve as a forewarning to those seeking to transform the monopoly of monarchical powers in the region into a constitution-based democratic partnership between rulers and ruled.
Democracy involves much more than just conforming to its basic concepts, or picking and choosing democratic cornerstones to engage in. In order for it to sustain, democracy needs to be embraced in its entirety, in all of its nuances and connotations without any exception. Democracy is a process, as much as it is a goal, and only with the full engagement and support of all citizens and society — the government, elected representatives and the electorate can the ideal of democracy be realized.
In order for democracy to work, it needs a government that is both responsive and responsible; it also needs an electorate and elected representatives who are cognizant of their rights, but also willing to adhere to their responsibilities. Democracy entitles one to certain fundamental rights, including personal, social, economic and political rights, but it also enjoins responsibilities to one another, to the community and to the country. You cannot have one without the other; when you do, you end up with a form of democracy as practised in Kuwait.
It would be unfair to pin these democratic deficiencies solely on Kuwait, the phenomena of dysfunctional democracies have led to many countries that have aspired to become democratic failing to reap the full benefits of democratization. Ample instances attest to the failure of selective implementation of democratic concepts by Western powers seeking to transpose democratic traditions to this part of the world .
Among such well-meaning, but flawed implementations of the democratization process in the Arab world are the recent revisionism witnessed against implanted democracy in Egypt. These same longings for a pre-democratic setup are also being increasingly expressed by many in Libya. In Lebanon and Iraq, where democracy is propped up by religious and political confessionalism, the situation has created inflexible interest groups and conflicts of interests, making any meaningful reforms aimed at taking the country forward almost impossible.
In Syria and Yemen, nascent democratic pinnings and subsequent foreign interventions have left the two countries tottering on the threshold of becoming failed states. Even in Tunisia, where the ‘Arab Spring’ is considered to have begun blooming, and where democracy has made inroads since the ousting of longtime president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in January 2011, a survey by Pew Research has found that nearly seven in ten people were dissatisfied with the progress of democracy in their country. It is only understandable, that if a decade ago people in the Arab world were cheering the fall of despots, today they are jeering the failures of democracy.
This change in mindset among the Arab populace in less than a decade has wider ramifications that extend beyond the region. In recent years, the Chinese model emphasizing stability and growth seems to have gained greater traction among the Arab public, than Western democratic concepts and values of personal and political freedom. Events over the past year and a half that were plagued by the COVID-19 crisis have only helped to further ingrain this notion. Emergence of the pandemic exacerbated and highlighted the apparent weaknesses of democratic systems to respond quickly and decisively to the pandemic; autocratic states seem to have fared better.
Of course, the form of government is not really related to successful pandemic responses. Irrespective of whether democratic or autocratic, countries that have competent state machinery, a government that citizens trust and listen to, and effective leaders, have been able to mount successful pandemic responses and limit the damage to the lives and livelihood of citizens. It is countries with dysfunctional states, deeply divided societies, or poor leadership at the helm that have fared poorly in their pandemic responses.
Despite the notion of ineptness among democracies being a fallacy, it has still created a perception among many people that democratic forms of government are incapable of responding quickly to catastrophes. People have come to believe that when it comes to exigencies, a rapid autocratic response is preferable to democratic vacillations, with its penchant for upholding personal liberties and choices.
Another factor behind the reluctance to espouse democracy in the region is the impact of religious influence on democratic leanings. The contention that religious influences are not responsible for the general failure of democracy to take root in the Arab world may sound compelling, but it is not persuasive. Many mainstream and radical proponents of religious doctrines have for years contended that their faith is incompatible with democracy and urged followers to shun this ‘Western’ practice. Repeated independent surveys have also shown low scores for freedom and democratic principles in this region. While change in this attitude among people may come over time, they will first need to reconcile their religious beliefs with their democratic aspirations.
Not just in the Middle-East, around the world democracy seems to be in recession. The same survey by Pew Research on Tunisia quoted above, also revealed that globally people are more dissatisfied than satisfied with the way democracy is working. Even in established democracies dissatisfaction with democracy is rife. More than half of those surveyed in the UK (69%), the US (59%), France (58%) and Japan (53%) expressed dissatisfaction with how democracy is working in their country. Not surprisingly, the recent assertion by US President Joe Biden that this century would be defined by the battle between democracy and autocracy has few takers, and not just in the Arab world./ TIMES KUWAIT
