Kuwaiti democracy is fine. At the opening session of the first conference of the Council of Arab International Relations (CARINTER), Mohammad Saqer, Chairman of the Council, said that he was against the decree issued by Kuwait's Emir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah, calling for the amendment of the electoral law, but stressed that while he was still convinced of his position, this was within the context of full loyalty to the Emir and full commitment to the constitution. The Emir of Kuwait not only welcomed the conference, but gave it his auspices. He tasked Prime Minister Sheikh Jaber Al-Mubarak Al-Sabah personally to represent him at the opening session, and instructed all government agencies concerned to provide all necessary facilitations for the success of the conference and to extend courtesy to its guests. I consider Mohammad to be “opposition lite," and I wish everyone in the opposition camp was on par with him, in culture, morality and politeness. I was surprised to see the new National Assembly has outdone the frenzied majority in the previous parliament in the number of interrogations of ministers, including Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior Ahmad al-Hamoud. Perhaps the new Assembly wanted to deflect charges of being subservient to the government that were made by the losers in the election, and ended up outbidding everyone. Jassem al-Kharafi, former speaker of parliament, announced his full support for the right of every deputy to question officials, but warned against personal interrogations over issues of a personal nature. This is while Sheikh Jaber al-Mubarak said that these motions were unexpected, and asked the deputies for a grace period of six months during which the ministers can perform their duties and then be held accountable accordingly. I found that some of the 'remnants' still opposed the one man, one vote rule, so I join my voice to that of Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said that if he were a Kuwaiti he would have endorsed this rule. Some in the opposition formed a coalition with four stated goals: Dissolving the Assembly brought about by the one vote rule, relaxing public freedoms, countering monopoly of power, and implementing the parliamentary system. But what this coalition is otherwise saying is that it does not understand the foundations of democracy, and therefore cannot see it even when it is all around it. Democracy – by definition since ancient Athens – is: One man (or woman), one vote. It follows that the Assembly resulting from the one man, four votes rule was not democratic. Democracy is very much present in Kuwait, as well as public freedoms. No proof of this is better than the fact that the opposition there continues to make its quixotic statements day after day, and assembles and protests often in violation of the law. I found out that former MP Musallam al-Barrak is facing trial. I will not comment on this but I want to say that I read a statement by Barrak in Al-Qabas, criticizing the one man one vote rule, so he practically condemned himself to ignorance about democracy. He said, “Many of those now in the Assembly of venal, shameful and buffoonish individuals would not have made it to the Assembly were it not for the one vote and the opposition." He then adds that his cause is the vision for a state, and that “we are real partners in government and public money, like it or not." This statement and others was the subject of my column two days ago, which I had written before I travelled to Kuwait. This perhaps requires some explanation. Mr. Barrak boycotted the elections and left power by choice, and yet he wants to be a partner in power. More importantly, he wants to be a partner in money, and spoke about “venal individuals" in the Assembly, so it seems that the topic of money preoccupies him greatly and his statement borders on being a Freudian slip of the tongue. I hope that Mr. Barrak will notice that there is a huge difference between news and opinions. The word “venal" constitutes news that requires proof, since all laws on the planet say “The onus is on the accuser." As for the words “shameful and buffoonish," then this simply impoliteness, but remains within the scope of opinion. If I said in London that Prime Minister David Cameron is a failure, then this would be my opinion, and it is my right to say it. But if I claimed that he was “venal," then I will be asked to provide proof of when he received bribes, from whom, and in which bank account the money was deposited. Otherwise, I would lose the case and pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees for both sides, in addition to any compensation the court orders to be paid to the defendant. I do not know if Mr. Barrak and others in the opposition like him understand the difference between information that must be proven to remove ambiguity, and an opinion that is the right of its proponent to express. Nevertheless, democracy in Kuwait is fine, and can accommodate those who violate its principles. I have no better proof of my case than the fact that Safa al-Hashem chaired a session of the Kuwaiti parliament, in a welcome precedent for all Arab women. If I were Kuwaiti, I would have registered my residence in her constituency, so that I may vote for her. [email protected]
