BBC News Magazine
A POINT OF VIEW
Clive James
Women who believe liberal values exploit their sexuality have something much greater to fear - the jackboot of dictatorship, says Clive James.
In a week when the troubled parliament of Britain continued to swamp the front pages with tales of fiddle, fraud and the incredible disappearing Speaker, there wasn't much room for news about the parliaments of other countries, but there was one story in the middle pages that might have been calculated to remind us of why democracy really matters. The parliament in Kuwait has just acquired its first four women MPs.
Kuwait is by no means, a perfectly constituted democracy. As far as I can figure out, there is a ruling family whose Emir chooses the government and calls elections for parliament. But women have now been elected to the parliament, by popular vote. It should hardly need saying that this would have been unlikely to happen if Saddam Hussein had been allowed to continue to rule the country by terror, but let's leave his awful memory aside for a moment, if we can, and dare to put forward a general reflection.
Democracy is the best chance for women. Or if that sounds too naive, too pro-western perhaps, then let's put it this way. The absence of democracy is seldom good news for women. Or, to get down to bedrock, if women can't vote for women, then they haven't got many weapons to fight with when they seek justice.
My own view, which I'm ready to hear contested, is that this is the main reason why some feminists in the west have been so slow to get behind those women in the world's all too numerous tyrannies who have to risk their lives to say anything.
It's just too clear a proof that men have a natural advantage when it comes to the application of violence. When you say that women have little chance against men if it comes to a physical battle, you are conceding that there really might be an intractable difference between the genders after all.
Ideological feminists in the West were for a long time reluctant to concede this, because they preferred to believe that there was no real difference, and that all female handicaps were imposed by social stereotyping that could be reversed by argument. But this belief was really possible only in a society where the powers of argument had a preponderance over the powers of violence.
And since many western feminists are still convinced that the social stereotyping of the West is the product of fundamental flaws within liberal democracy itself, they have a tendency to believe that undemocratic societies are somehow valuable in the opposition they offer to the free countries which the feminists are so keen to characterise as not free enough.
I have to pick my words carefully here, because this is the touchiest theme I have ever tackled in these broadcasts, but I do think it's high time to say that if feminist ideologists find liberal democracy unfriendly, they might consider that the absence of liberal democracy is a lot less friendly still.
Helping to give me courage, here, finally, is that quite a lot of women are already saying it. But they tend not to be western pundits. They tend to be women out there, in the thick of a real battle not just an argument. Why their bravery doesn't shame more of our feminist pundits I hesitate to say. It certainly shames me.
This importance of democracy, or at any rate of an amelioration of tyranny, should have become clear when, after Saddam Hussein was deposed, the first provisional government in Iraq included women members. But it didn't become clear, because too many of our commentators wanted to call the provisional government a puppet government, under the control of the US.
Vote best hope
Even as it became steadily more clear that nothing in Iraq was under the control of the US, feminists in the West continued to do a stunning job of ignoring the risks that women in Iraqi public life were running. An Iraqi female MP could get murdered and it was held to be a natural result of US imperialism, almost as if she had been murdered by George W Bush in person.
But she hadn't been. She had been murdered by local men who were making an example of her. They feared what she would bring: the spectre of women claiming an importance equal to that of men.
Last year the excellent Australian feminist journalist Pamela Bone finally died of cancer, but while she was still fighting it she published, in 2005, in response to what she regarded as the thunderous silence that had greeted the stand taken by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an article called "Where are the western feminists?" What Pamela Bone meant was, that she was amazed why so many of her colleagues couldn't see, or didn't want to see, that democracy was the best hope for women.
Pamela Bone was well aware that there is a necessary quarrel about how democracy can be brought about in countries that don't have it, and I hasten to concede that of the two possible main views about the invasion of Iraq, for example, my own view, in favour, soon became the minority view. But Pamela Bone couldn't see how there could be any doubt that women in the countries without democracy were in a battle that they were bound to lose if the men could prevail by force.
Men will always monopolise the means of violence if they can. Women can learn to shoot guns, but there are no all-female armies, and even the Amazons were probably a myth. Women, on the whole, would naturally like to do something else, whereas an army, for too many men, is a home away from home, and often their only home.
It's the only home for the junta in Burma. The junta is in the news again this week because it found a pretext for locking Aung San Suu Kyi into prison, instead of just leaving her helpless under house arrest. The terms of Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest were that she should receive no visitors, and some poor demented American
Slow martyrdom
Vietnam veteran made sure that the terms were violated by swimming to her front door.
Like many a head-case he probably just wanted to discuss his theories about how aliens control everything, but the all-male military junta in Burma really does control everything and here was their chance to dump Aung San Suu Kyi into jail until the next election is over.
Aung San Suu Kyi not only has the stature, she has the right, to lead the government of her county. If the public got a chance to say so, she would do so, and bring immeasurable improvement not only to Burma but the whole area.
I say all this because in some moment of optimism I allowed my name to get put on the masthead of the organisation in this country that campaigns for her release, the Burma Campaign, but I have done nothing else for her before today, mainly because I don't believe that my going to dinner with like-minded humanitarians is likely to help much.
What she needs is an invading army, but even if there were one available, armed intervention, since the Iraq incursion, has been out of fashion: no doubt with good reason, but those appalled by the moral cost of toppling a tyrannical regime are still stuck with counting the moral cost incurred by leaving it alone.
The regime in Burma will most likely go on being left alone. Aung San Suu Kyi's slow martyrdom makes the cost obvious. The current best plan for getting her sprung is to bring persuasion to bear on India so that India will bring pressure to bear on the junta, and so on until she grows old and grey.
A better world
Being who she is, she grows old slowly, and at the age of 63 she looks like her own daughter, but time is still against her. If time is all you've got going for you, it isn't much. What justice needs, when it is ranged against naked force, is a contrary force, and the fact that there isn't one is enough to reduce the onlooker to despair.
Despair can coarsen one's judgment. I knew enough about what Saddam Hussein and his talented son Uday were doing to women to want that regime toppled. The price of doing so might have seemed too high, but at least now, six years later, it is no longer official policy to rape a woman in front of her family. There may be unofficial forces still on the loose in Iraq who would like to do that, but the government no longer does it.
Fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan still seems worth it when you have read about what the Taliban want to do with any woman who seeks an education, but it's easy to despair when you think of how hard it is to stop them.
Sometimes despair overwhelms us when we read of just a single so-called honour crime in which the men of a family have ruined the life of a daughter for what seems no reason at all, and the men walk free because that's the culture, and the culture runs the government. I felt despair when Aung San Suu Kyi got taken off to jail, and for her I thought I had no despair left.
But heartbreak feels out of place when we see this news story about the four women MPs in Kuwait, and there's a photo of one of them, rejoicing with her friends. I'm looking at the photo right now. Her name is Aseel al Awadhi. She has a merry face and an exultantly elevated thumb. It will be a better world for all of us if women like her are free to do well, and if she could hear us it would be our simple duty to say good luck to you. And another duty, alas, to say: mind how you go.
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Friday, May 22, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Kuwait: Women benefit from media coverage
Kuwait Times
KUWAIT: Two lecturers at Kuwait University agreed that women were the ones who mostly benefitted from media coverage of parliamentary campaigns, because it was an easy option for those who found it difficult to attend rallies. Mass communication professor Dr Khalid Al-Qihs said that there was a close link between democracy and media, which helped many women in their evaluation of the agenda of candidates. "The conservative nature of many Kuwaiti families makes the movement of women among campaign circles l
imited in some cases, which gives importance to media coverage of rallies and gatherings," he explained.
Al-Qihs noted that democracy and free media were two faces of a single coin, and media helped voters make the right decision and provided them with all the necessary information about those involved in the race and the performance of the government. Moreover, he said that the district system amendment made it more difficult for a candidate to communicate directly with voters, which in turn prompted many to seek the media. On her part, mass media professor Dr Heba Al-Musallam explained that although women a
ccounted for the greatest percentage of people benefiting from media coverage of campaigns, it remained "an insufficient source (of information).
She noted that different media outlets were government by their own policies and thus focused on the candidates that fell in line with these policies, explaining that the "media framing" theory revolved around the media's focus on one aspect and overlooking others. Al-Musallam also noted that the short campaigning time was not enough for candidates to present their agendas to voters in a thorough manner, and again the media offered a suitable alternative. The launch of satellite channels that were speciali
zed in following candidates' campaigns and seminars is also useful, she said. - KUNA
KUWAIT: Two lecturers at Kuwait University agreed that women were the ones who mostly benefitted from media coverage of parliamentary campaigns, because it was an easy option for those who found it difficult to attend rallies. Mass communication professor Dr Khalid Al-Qihs said that there was a close link between democracy and media, which helped many women in their evaluation of the agenda of candidates. "The conservative nature of many Kuwaiti families makes the movement of women among campaign circles l
imited in some cases, which gives importance to media coverage of rallies and gatherings," he explained.
Al-Qihs noted that democracy and free media were two faces of a single coin, and media helped voters make the right decision and provided them with all the necessary information about those involved in the race and the performance of the government. Moreover, he said that the district system amendment made it more difficult for a candidate to communicate directly with voters, which in turn prompted many to seek the media. On her part, mass media professor Dr Heba Al-Musallam explained that although women a
ccounted for the greatest percentage of people benefiting from media coverage of campaigns, it remained "an insufficient source (of information).
She noted that different media outlets were government by their own policies and thus focused on the candidates that fell in line with these policies, explaining that the "media framing" theory revolved around the media's focus on one aspect and overlooking others. Al-Musallam also noted that the short campaigning time was not enough for candidates to present their agendas to voters in a thorough manner, and again the media offered a suitable alternative. The launch of satellite channels that were speciali
zed in following candidates' campaigns and seminars is also useful, she said. - KUNA
Monday, May 11, 2009
Kuwait: Protesters slam 'infidel' charge
Kuwait Times
Published Date: May 10, 2009
By Hussain Al-Qatari, Staff Writer
KUWAIT: A number of Kuwaitis held a rally in front of the National Assembly yesterday to protest recent accusations by an Islamist candidate. Thawabet Al-Ummah, a religious movement led by fourth constituency candidate Mohammad Hayef Al-Mutairi, issued a statement on Wednesday in which it claimed that what was said by third constituency candidate Dr Aseel Al-Awadhi in a widely-watched YouTube video makes her an "infidel" and that she must "repent and beg for forgiveness.
The YouTube video that appeared on May 5 shows a still picture of Al-Awadhi and edited audio clips previously recorded without permission during one of her classes at Kuwait University where she teaches. In the audio clips, she makes a reference to a verse in the Holy Quran that talks about hijab (the Islamic head cover) and its historical context in accordance with Tafsir Al-Tabari, a commentary and exegesis book on the Holy Quran written by prominent historian and scholar Muhammad Al-Tabari. Many extremi
sts accused her of corruption and immorality, the latest of which was a column in a newspaper calling her "irreligious".
Expressing irritation towards such allegations, first constituency candidate and former minister of health Dr Massouma Mubarak said at the rally yesterday that Kuwaiti women were slandered for asking for their political rights in 2005, and were attacked for running for elections in 2006 and 2008, but it is time for such accusations to stop. "They said that a woman who votes without taking permission of her husband or father is a sinner. This is not acceptable. We have to tell them to stop. Stop implementin
g religion to your own desire. Stop messing up democracy. Stop marginalizing humans for your own gain," she said to the applause of the protestors.
Political activist Ali Khajah objected the random and biased accusations of Al-Awadhi being an infidel, stressing that Kuwait is a democratic country. He said that everyone is entitled to have their opinion, but no one has the right to use religion for their own needs and to make such decisions regarding whether someone is an infidel or a Muslim, or whether they are going to heaven or hell. He warned against such extremist behavior, saying that it can lead to murder. "Kuwait is Kuwait of freedom. Kuwait is
Kuwait of culture, of advancement. Yes, there are dark aspects, but they will go away and Kuwait will come back as it was. Kuwait, my country, may you be safe and glorious!" he said.
A representative of Kuwait's National Democratic Alliance, Anwar Juma, said that the accusations of extremist Islamists must be answered to with the same level of ruthlessness. "They have not one speck of respect for Kuwaitis and nationalism. They attacked harshly with their statements." He elaborated that such religious affiliations have no positive stances to be remembered with, giving examples of how when they were in control of Kuwait University's students union, they simply called the invasion of Ira
q to Kuwait a "disagreement between the two countries." Juma asked "Is this how they describe the barbarian actions by Iraqi soldiers against Kuwait's citizens and residents?
Former MP Meshari Al-Osaimi in his speech predicted the end of extremist Islamic powers in Kuwait in the field of politics. "They only issued this fatwa because their faction is dying. It is dying, and they have noticed that people are leaning more towards nationalism after extremist Islamism failed to take the country anywhere towards advancement." He said that this does not mean Kuwaitis have no respect for religion, drawing the line between Islam as a religion and Islamism as the political employment of
Islam for political interests. "This is not the first time that women participate in the elections. But now that they (extremists) sensed the threat of women on their position, they felt the need to do anything in order to curb voters from supporting female candidates," he said.
Published Date: May 10, 2009
By Hussain Al-Qatari, Staff Writer
KUWAIT: A number of Kuwaitis held a rally in front of the National Assembly yesterday to protest recent accusations by an Islamist candidate. Thawabet Al-Ummah, a religious movement led by fourth constituency candidate Mohammad Hayef Al-Mutairi, issued a statement on Wednesday in which it claimed that what was said by third constituency candidate Dr Aseel Al-Awadhi in a widely-watched YouTube video makes her an "infidel" and that she must "repent and beg for forgiveness.
The YouTube video that appeared on May 5 shows a still picture of Al-Awadhi and edited audio clips previously recorded without permission during one of her classes at Kuwait University where she teaches. In the audio clips, she makes a reference to a verse in the Holy Quran that talks about hijab (the Islamic head cover) and its historical context in accordance with Tafsir Al-Tabari, a commentary and exegesis book on the Holy Quran written by prominent historian and scholar Muhammad Al-Tabari. Many extremi
sts accused her of corruption and immorality, the latest of which was a column in a newspaper calling her "irreligious".
Expressing irritation towards such allegations, first constituency candidate and former minister of health Dr Massouma Mubarak said at the rally yesterday that Kuwaiti women were slandered for asking for their political rights in 2005, and were attacked for running for elections in 2006 and 2008, but it is time for such accusations to stop. "They said that a woman who votes without taking permission of her husband or father is a sinner. This is not acceptable. We have to tell them to stop. Stop implementin
g religion to your own desire. Stop messing up democracy. Stop marginalizing humans for your own gain," she said to the applause of the protestors.
Political activist Ali Khajah objected the random and biased accusations of Al-Awadhi being an infidel, stressing that Kuwait is a democratic country. He said that everyone is entitled to have their opinion, but no one has the right to use religion for their own needs and to make such decisions regarding whether someone is an infidel or a Muslim, or whether they are going to heaven or hell. He warned against such extremist behavior, saying that it can lead to murder. "Kuwait is Kuwait of freedom. Kuwait is
Kuwait of culture, of advancement. Yes, there are dark aspects, but they will go away and Kuwait will come back as it was. Kuwait, my country, may you be safe and glorious!" he said.
A representative of Kuwait's National Democratic Alliance, Anwar Juma, said that the accusations of extremist Islamists must be answered to with the same level of ruthlessness. "They have not one speck of respect for Kuwaitis and nationalism. They attacked harshly with their statements." He elaborated that such religious affiliations have no positive stances to be remembered with, giving examples of how when they were in control of Kuwait University's students union, they simply called the invasion of Ira
q to Kuwait a "disagreement between the two countries." Juma asked "Is this how they describe the barbarian actions by Iraqi soldiers against Kuwait's citizens and residents?
Former MP Meshari Al-Osaimi in his speech predicted the end of extremist Islamic powers in Kuwait in the field of politics. "They only issued this fatwa because their faction is dying. It is dying, and they have noticed that people are leaning more towards nationalism after extremist Islamism failed to take the country anywhere towards advancement." He said that this does not mean Kuwaitis have no respect for religion, drawing the line between Islam as a religion and Islamism as the political employment of
Islam for political interests. "This is not the first time that women participate in the elections. But now that they (extremists) sensed the threat of women on their position, they felt the need to do anything in order to curb voters from supporting female candidates," he said.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Kuwait: Polls could mark major turning point
Gulfnews
By Duraid Al Baik, Associate Editor
Published: April 27, 2009, 23:16
Dubai: Analysts observed four major changes in the public arena in the 2009 parliament election campaign; two being quite serious which could lead to a dramatic change in the future of democracy in the GCC state.
First, the tone of criticism against the government in the upcoming election is intensified because of pressure to contain the impact of the international financial crisis.
"The tone of disagreement is being heard especially loud during the current electorate campaign, whereas before the Emir and members of the royal family enjoyed more criticism free status," Ali Al Baghli, an ex-minister and writer highlighted. He also added that respect for national figures has slowly been eroding and says that such practices should not be allowed to flourish under the umbrella of democracy.
The defragmentation of a very strong Islamic opposition which used to stand against liberal forces in Kuwait and the rise of tribalism are additional variables in the May election.
"The tribal forces that used to be weaker and very much depending on the support of the government in the previous elections are getting much stronger in this year's election with signs of not only getting more independent from the government but becoming an emerging threat to the government itself," Hamad Al Mutairi of Al Mutair tribe told Gulf News.
According to Al Mutair, tribal politicians have become very powerful and are using grassroots techniques to promote themselves.
He said they now use new methods like posters, SMS, and candlelit sit-ins.
Of striking significance are women candidates from four main tribes calling for public gatherings and speaking in public, Al Mutair pointed out.
He believes that the number of registered candidates for the 2009 election of 283 including 34 women will decline in the coming few days because candidates who registered in the campaign for tactical reason will withdraw before the scheduled election on May 16.
"Women who obtained the right to run for the parliament in the 2008 election and failed to reach the house in the previous election might get closer or even succeed in this year with three of them getting more sophisticated in managing election campaigns," he said.
Aseel Al Awadi, Rola Dashti and Massouma Al Mubarak, are among the 34 women candidates running for the parliament. They are becoming extremely sophisticated in managing their campaigns by focusing on the key issues considered important for people in their constituencies.
"Women participation in this campaign is no longer ceremonial and I expect one or two of them to succeed in their efforts and reach the parliament for the first time in the history of the state," he said
He said women like Engineer Naima Al Hai, a candidate for the third constituency, is challenging the Islamists by running emphasising her right to represent the electorate of her constituency without wearing the headscarf.
Referring to an incident in the previous parliament where Islamist MP's requested a woman minister to wear hijab while in the parliament, Al Hai said, "if they [Islamists] ask me to wear hijab I would ask them to grow a beard, shave their moustache and wear an above the ankle garment like instructed by the Sunna of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)".
The fourth variable in this election is the rise of televised media. Five satellite channels have been launched by different groups to convey the views of the candidates to people in their constituencies. Al Sisy said Al Shahid (the witness), Al Rai (the opinion), Al Majlis (the gathering hall), Al Adala (The Justice) and Scoop, have assigned a minimum of 12 hours of their programmes to cover electoral activities. "There is no more dependence on official media and how much the time it could offer to each and every candidate," he said.
By Duraid Al Baik, Associate Editor
Published: April 27, 2009, 23:16
Dubai: Analysts observed four major changes in the public arena in the 2009 parliament election campaign; two being quite serious which could lead to a dramatic change in the future of democracy in the GCC state.
First, the tone of criticism against the government in the upcoming election is intensified because of pressure to contain the impact of the international financial crisis.
"The tone of disagreement is being heard especially loud during the current electorate campaign, whereas before the Emir and members of the royal family enjoyed more criticism free status," Ali Al Baghli, an ex-minister and writer highlighted. He also added that respect for national figures has slowly been eroding and says that such practices should not be allowed to flourish under the umbrella of democracy.
The defragmentation of a very strong Islamic opposition which used to stand against liberal forces in Kuwait and the rise of tribalism are additional variables in the May election.
"The tribal forces that used to be weaker and very much depending on the support of the government in the previous elections are getting much stronger in this year's election with signs of not only getting more independent from the government but becoming an emerging threat to the government itself," Hamad Al Mutairi of Al Mutair tribe told Gulf News.
According to Al Mutair, tribal politicians have become very powerful and are using grassroots techniques to promote themselves.
He said they now use new methods like posters, SMS, and candlelit sit-ins.
Of striking significance are women candidates from four main tribes calling for public gatherings and speaking in public, Al Mutair pointed out.
He believes that the number of registered candidates for the 2009 election of 283 including 34 women will decline in the coming few days because candidates who registered in the campaign for tactical reason will withdraw before the scheduled election on May 16.
"Women who obtained the right to run for the parliament in the 2008 election and failed to reach the house in the previous election might get closer or even succeed in this year with three of them getting more sophisticated in managing election campaigns," he said.
Aseel Al Awadi, Rola Dashti and Massouma Al Mubarak, are among the 34 women candidates running for the parliament. They are becoming extremely sophisticated in managing their campaigns by focusing on the key issues considered important for people in their constituencies.
"Women participation in this campaign is no longer ceremonial and I expect one or two of them to succeed in their efforts and reach the parliament for the first time in the history of the state," he said
He said women like Engineer Naima Al Hai, a candidate for the third constituency, is challenging the Islamists by running emphasising her right to represent the electorate of her constituency without wearing the headscarf.
Referring to an incident in the previous parliament where Islamist MP's requested a woman minister to wear hijab while in the parliament, Al Hai said, "if they [Islamists] ask me to wear hijab I would ask them to grow a beard, shave their moustache and wear an above the ankle garment like instructed by the Sunna of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)".
The fourth variable in this election is the rise of televised media. Five satellite channels have been launched by different groups to convey the views of the candidates to people in their constituencies. Al Sisy said Al Shahid (the witness), Al Rai (the opinion), Al Majlis (the gathering hall), Al Adala (The Justice) and Scoop, have assigned a minimum of 12 hours of their programmes to cover electoral activities. "There is no more dependence on official media and how much the time it could offer to each and every candidate," he said.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Saudi Arabia: Developments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Developments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Usamah al-Kurdi
Member, Consultative Council of Saudi Arabia
Overview
Usamah al-Kurdi spoke at the Middle East Institute on the reforms that are presently taking place in Saudi Arabia. Through his presentation, al-Kurdi emphasized the particularity of Saudi Arabian development and democratization, insisting that change is occurring slowly but surely in the Kingdom and responding to critics of Saudi reform, who claim government foot-dragging on the issue.
Event Summary
During his talk at the Middle East Institute, prominent member of Saudi Arabia's Majlis al-Shura -- or the Consultative Council -- Usamah al-Kurdi imparted his views on the developments that have been underway in the Kingdom since 1993. Al-Kurdi's presentation traced the series of reforms that have begun to alter the way that the Saudi people live, work, and participate in government. Central to these reforms were the rights of individuals to challenge the government and the removal of those barriers that have heretofore preceded the limited engagement of particular groups (most notably women and foreigners) in Saudi Arabia's government, society, and economy. All in all, al-Kurdi's message was clear: while change occurs slowly in Saudi Arabia, it is underway, and the country will one day enjoy a more democratic society.
Al-Kurdi acknowledged the pressing need for human development as the key instigator of reform in the Kingdom, which he dates to 1993, when King Fahd established the Majlis al-Shura. He elaborated on reforms dealing with education while pointing to the creation of the Consultative Council, civil societies, and municipal councils as the bench mark of progress in Saudi Arabia -- theoretically these measures should ensure that the Saudi peoples' voices will be heard. Al-Kurdi emphasized the opening of the economy that has been taking place over the last decade, most notably as a result of dismantling measures that had restricted foreign investment. However, al-Kurdi shunned the suggestion that Saudi Arabia should follow the economic expansion model of its neighbor, the United Arab Emirates, who over the past decade has enjoyed a quick ascent to the top of the business and financial world.
Al-Kurdi also stated that contrary to the perception of many Americans, progress is not a science; there is no universal formula for initiating reform. Accordingly, al-Kurdi challenged the notion that Saudi development must adhere to Western patterns of progress through direct engagement of citizens. Rather, he argued that change must align with Saudi customs, which he conceded are still very much steeped in tradition and religious values. Al-Kurdi asserted that these traditions are unlikely to change soon and that a "mass democratization" of Saudi society is impossible.
Al-Kurdi also addressed the status of women in Saudi society. Although al-Kurdi stated his desire to see Saudi women's rights advanced more quickly, he also pointed out evidence of progress already made, citing examples of well-educated and successful women from his own family. Al-Kurdi noted that women currently constitute 35% of all employees in the public sector and 55% of all university students in Saudi Arabia. Al-Kurdi also admitted the limitations of developments concerning women's rights, but he expressed satisfaction at the current rate of Saudi progress on this issue and optimism about the potential for further improvements.
---Saudi-US Relations Information Service (SUSRIS)
Member, Consultative Council of Saudi Arabia
Overview
Usamah al-Kurdi spoke at the Middle East Institute on the reforms that are presently taking place in Saudi Arabia. Through his presentation, al-Kurdi emphasized the particularity of Saudi Arabian development and democratization, insisting that change is occurring slowly but surely in the Kingdom and responding to critics of Saudi reform, who claim government foot-dragging on the issue.
Event Summary
During his talk at the Middle East Institute, prominent member of Saudi Arabia's Majlis al-Shura -- or the Consultative Council -- Usamah al-Kurdi imparted his views on the developments that have been underway in the Kingdom since 1993. Al-Kurdi's presentation traced the series of reforms that have begun to alter the way that the Saudi people live, work, and participate in government. Central to these reforms were the rights of individuals to challenge the government and the removal of those barriers that have heretofore preceded the limited engagement of particular groups (most notably women and foreigners) in Saudi Arabia's government, society, and economy. All in all, al-Kurdi's message was clear: while change occurs slowly in Saudi Arabia, it is underway, and the country will one day enjoy a more democratic society.
Al-Kurdi acknowledged the pressing need for human development as the key instigator of reform in the Kingdom, which he dates to 1993, when King Fahd established the Majlis al-Shura. He elaborated on reforms dealing with education while pointing to the creation of the Consultative Council, civil societies, and municipal councils as the bench mark of progress in Saudi Arabia -- theoretically these measures should ensure that the Saudi peoples' voices will be heard. Al-Kurdi emphasized the opening of the economy that has been taking place over the last decade, most notably as a result of dismantling measures that had restricted foreign investment. However, al-Kurdi shunned the suggestion that Saudi Arabia should follow the economic expansion model of its neighbor, the United Arab Emirates, who over the past decade has enjoyed a quick ascent to the top of the business and financial world.
Al-Kurdi also stated that contrary to the perception of many Americans, progress is not a science; there is no universal formula for initiating reform. Accordingly, al-Kurdi challenged the notion that Saudi development must adhere to Western patterns of progress through direct engagement of citizens. Rather, he argued that change must align with Saudi customs, which he conceded are still very much steeped in tradition and religious values. Al-Kurdi asserted that these traditions are unlikely to change soon and that a "mass democratization" of Saudi society is impossible.
Al-Kurdi also addressed the status of women in Saudi society. Although al-Kurdi stated his desire to see Saudi women's rights advanced more quickly, he also pointed out evidence of progress already made, citing examples of well-educated and successful women from his own family. Al-Kurdi noted that women currently constitute 35% of all employees in the public sector and 55% of all university students in Saudi Arabia. Al-Kurdi also admitted the limitations of developments concerning women's rights, but he expressed satisfaction at the current rate of Saudi progress on this issue and optimism about the potential for further improvements.
---Saudi-US Relations Information Service (SUSRIS)
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Middle East: Reviving Democracy Promotion
By Marina Ottaway
The Bush administration's Freedom Agenda--an undertaking rich in rhetoric and bombast and poor on substance--has been an unqualified disaster. It has not helped bring about change in the region, but it has undermined US credibility. Yet the next administration must not succumb to the temptation to simply dismiss the idea of democracy promotion in the Middle East. The deficit of democracy denounced by the UNDP Arab Human Development Report remains large. In countries like Egypt the problem is more acute, with gains made in the last two decades steadily eroded by a resurgence of authoritarianism.
Most important, the demand for democracy or at least for more openness and participation remains high in the region, even if it is ineffectual. It comes in part from liberal organizations and intellectuals who embrace the concept of liberal democracy. Theirs is not a powerful demand, because liberal organizations in the Middle East generally lack organized constituencies, hence are not significant political players. Demands for participation and democracy are also being set forth by Islamist political parties that have chosen to participate in the electoral political process of their countries, taking advantage of whatever opportunities exist to establish themselves as mainstream political actors.
Legal Islamic political parties now exist in Morocco, Algeria, Jordan and Yemen; in Bahrain and Kuwait, Islamic organizations operate as "political societies" because the law does not allow parties; in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood, which is neither a legal association nor is allowed to form a political party, nevertheless successfully participates in elections by fielding candidates as "independents." The demand for democracy by Islamist organizations is looked at with a lot of suspicion in both the West and the region. Yet the question always raised, "are these organizations truly committed to democracy?" could also be asked about all ruling parties and most secular ones.
Demands for reform, though not for democracy, are also coming from many incumbent governments or at least from reformers within the ruling establishment, worried that their countries' sclerotic political and administrative systems are no longer capable of handling the challenges of twenty first century governance in a global economy. The Gulf countries in particular are facing a growing disconnect between economies that are increasingly integrated globally and better educated populations exposed to the outside world thanks to a communications revolution on one side, and political systems that have undergone little modification in decades on the other. Personal efforts by even the most enlightened members of ruling families cannot close the gap forever. Arab countries need new institutions of governance and participation. Many leaders are quite aware of this yet are uncertain about what to do and fear losing control.
Under these conditions, the next US administration cannot simply go back to a policy of supporting friendly regimes no matter what their domestic policies are. But it will not be easy for a new administration to devise a new policy. A major obstacle is the loss of US credibility engendered by recent events. Arabs who want to see democratic change in their countries no longer believe that the United States is willing or able to help. Governments that, when the freedom agenda was first launched, worried about US pressure or the possibility of sanctions stopped taking US democracy promotion seriously when the Bush administration started courting them to join an anti-Iran alliance.
Europe also needs to continue its efforts to promote reform in the Middle East. The challenge for the European Union is not to restore its lost credibility, but to increase its effectiveness.
The first step in an attempt to restore an approach to democracy promotion that will not be immediately dismissed by reformers and not taken seriously by governments is for the US to set modest goals and pursue them consistently. Modesty of goals is the key to consistency: in a region where the US has major security and economic interests, democracy promotion cannot be the only determinant of policy and ambitious democracy goals cannot be met.
The second step, admittedly a difficult one, is to tailor goals to the conditions of individual countries. For example, the next step toward reform cannot be the same in a country like Egypt, where the institutional framework for democracy exists although the government is not allowing it to function, and the United Arab Emirates, where there is no institutional structure. In Egypt, the US needs to understand what steps would be relevant to make the institutions work: putting in place an honest mechanism for registering parties would make much more sense than pushing to restore judicial supervision of elections, for example, because without party registration mechanisms elections will not be competitive. In the UAE, the challenge is to move from personal rule to institutions before anything else can happen.
The third step, intellectually easy but politically difficult, is for the US to recognize that it does not always know what the next step is in many countries. Thus it cannot prescribe or, worse, dictate. It can only work with democracy advocates but also with the more open-minded members of ruling establishments to devise and then support a process of change that is tailored to conditions.
The challenge for the EU is of a different nature. The EU has always followed a low-key approach to democracy promotion, focusing on dialogue as well as cultural and economic exchanges. As a result it has not suffered loss of credibility, but it has not had much influence either, as all ten-year evaluations of the Barcelona process show. The process has been slow, rigid and driven by bureaucratic rules rather than by opportunities.
The key to greater success for both the EU and the US may well be a middle way that combines the low-key, long-term European approach with the greater sense of political need and opportunities that drove the Bush administration.
---Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
The Bush administration's Freedom Agenda--an undertaking rich in rhetoric and bombast and poor on substance--has been an unqualified disaster. It has not helped bring about change in the region, but it has undermined US credibility. Yet the next administration must not succumb to the temptation to simply dismiss the idea of democracy promotion in the Middle East. The deficit of democracy denounced by the UNDP Arab Human Development Report remains large. In countries like Egypt the problem is more acute, with gains made in the last two decades steadily eroded by a resurgence of authoritarianism.
Most important, the demand for democracy or at least for more openness and participation remains high in the region, even if it is ineffectual. It comes in part from liberal organizations and intellectuals who embrace the concept of liberal democracy. Theirs is not a powerful demand, because liberal organizations in the Middle East generally lack organized constituencies, hence are not significant political players. Demands for participation and democracy are also being set forth by Islamist political parties that have chosen to participate in the electoral political process of their countries, taking advantage of whatever opportunities exist to establish themselves as mainstream political actors.
Legal Islamic political parties now exist in Morocco, Algeria, Jordan and Yemen; in Bahrain and Kuwait, Islamic organizations operate as "political societies" because the law does not allow parties; in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood, which is neither a legal association nor is allowed to form a political party, nevertheless successfully participates in elections by fielding candidates as "independents." The demand for democracy by Islamist organizations is looked at with a lot of suspicion in both the West and the region. Yet the question always raised, "are these organizations truly committed to democracy?" could also be asked about all ruling parties and most secular ones.
Demands for reform, though not for democracy, are also coming from many incumbent governments or at least from reformers within the ruling establishment, worried that their countries' sclerotic political and administrative systems are no longer capable of handling the challenges of twenty first century governance in a global economy. The Gulf countries in particular are facing a growing disconnect between economies that are increasingly integrated globally and better educated populations exposed to the outside world thanks to a communications revolution on one side, and political systems that have undergone little modification in decades on the other. Personal efforts by even the most enlightened members of ruling families cannot close the gap forever. Arab countries need new institutions of governance and participation. Many leaders are quite aware of this yet are uncertain about what to do and fear losing control.
Under these conditions, the next US administration cannot simply go back to a policy of supporting friendly regimes no matter what their domestic policies are. But it will not be easy for a new administration to devise a new policy. A major obstacle is the loss of US credibility engendered by recent events. Arabs who want to see democratic change in their countries no longer believe that the United States is willing or able to help. Governments that, when the freedom agenda was first launched, worried about US pressure or the possibility of sanctions stopped taking US democracy promotion seriously when the Bush administration started courting them to join an anti-Iran alliance.
Europe also needs to continue its efforts to promote reform in the Middle East. The challenge for the European Union is not to restore its lost credibility, but to increase its effectiveness.
The first step in an attempt to restore an approach to democracy promotion that will not be immediately dismissed by reformers and not taken seriously by governments is for the US to set modest goals and pursue them consistently. Modesty of goals is the key to consistency: in a region where the US has major security and economic interests, democracy promotion cannot be the only determinant of policy and ambitious democracy goals cannot be met.
The second step, admittedly a difficult one, is to tailor goals to the conditions of individual countries. For example, the next step toward reform cannot be the same in a country like Egypt, where the institutional framework for democracy exists although the government is not allowing it to function, and the United Arab Emirates, where there is no institutional structure. In Egypt, the US needs to understand what steps would be relevant to make the institutions work: putting in place an honest mechanism for registering parties would make much more sense than pushing to restore judicial supervision of elections, for example, because without party registration mechanisms elections will not be competitive. In the UAE, the challenge is to move from personal rule to institutions before anything else can happen.
The third step, intellectually easy but politically difficult, is for the US to recognize that it does not always know what the next step is in many countries. Thus it cannot prescribe or, worse, dictate. It can only work with democracy advocates but also with the more open-minded members of ruling establishments to devise and then support a process of change that is tailored to conditions.
The challenge for the EU is of a different nature. The EU has always followed a low-key approach to democracy promotion, focusing on dialogue as well as cultural and economic exchanges. As a result it has not suffered loss of credibility, but it has not had much influence either, as all ten-year evaluations of the Barcelona process show. The process has been slow, rigid and driven by bureaucratic rules rather than by opportunities.
The key to greater success for both the EU and the US may well be a middle way that combines the low-key, long-term European approach with the greater sense of political need and opportunities that drove the Bush administration.
---Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Monday, June 2, 2008
Egypt: Facebook showdown
Right now, the government of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is considering blocking Facebook, the social networking website that has become a popular hangout for twentysomethings worldwide and a favorite venue for Egypt's disaffected youth. The reason: In April, one group of young citizens mobilized 80,000 supporters to protest rising food prices.
Facebook networking played a crucial role in broadening support and turnout for an April 6 textile workers' strike and protest. The Egyptian government, which has governed for 25 years under emergency law and doesn't allow more than five people to gather unregistered, hit back hard, jailing young dissidents and torturing Ahmed Maher, a young activist who tried, unsuccessfully, to organize a second demonstration in early May.
Despite these setbacks, the "Facebook movement" in Egypt is significant for several reasons. First, it challenges the perception that there is no prospect for independent, secular opposition in the country. The majority of Egyptians are under 30 and have known no other ruler than Mubarak. They have not seen real political parties because the government has long restricted opposition parties and free media.
The Facebook movement engaged large numbers of youth for the first time. Second, the Web offers a safe political space -- a role the mosque has traditionally played in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood has for decades been the only viable opposition.
With Facebook, young secular people can communicate, build relationships and express their opinions freely. (Significantly, the Muslim Brotherhood opposed the successful April demonstration but supported the unsuccessful May event.) Every member in the 100,000-strong online community could be, at any given moment, a leader of a movement. Third, engaging Egypt's youth is an important item on the agenda of Mubarak's son, Gamal, as he works to gain support for his succession to power.
As a young politician, Gamal established the Future Generation Foundation in 2000, which incubated many of the current leaders of the ruling National Democratic Party and the new Cabinet. Facebook activists and their supporters should be able to turn to this group for support.
A few weeks ago, Belal Diab, a 20-year-old college student, interrupted one of the Egyptian prime minister's speeches to protest the arrests of Facebook activists, shouting: "Look who are you fighting; it is us, the younger generation who stood with you and supported you!"
Nevertheless, Facebook activists are being targeted by government-based media campaigns defaming the website and the youth activists who use it. The government also warns media not to talk about the phenomenon. I saw the heavy-handed efforts of the government while recording a TV show with Maher. During the taping, Egyptian police broke into the studio, threatened the station manager and forced the guest outside the room.
What can be done to help this movement? The international community and the U.S. government should pressure the Egyptian government to support Internet freedom and keep Facebook accessible to Egyptians. One young activist, Ahmad Samih, is campaigning to gain local and international support to prevent the Egyptian government from blocking Facebook.
So far, nearly 20 Egyptian human rights organizations are supporting this cause. International human rights organizations should publicly join in that show of support. Egyptian democrats are "Facebooking" their advocacy in order to escape heavy recriminations. It would be shameful for the international community not to stand up on their behalf against a government that seeks to deny them even that small space to express themselves.
Otherwise, Mubarak's self-fulfilling prophesy as the only alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood will continue to hold Egypt back from the democracy its people deserve.
-- Sherif Mansour, LA Times
Facebook networking played a crucial role in broadening support and turnout for an April 6 textile workers' strike and protest. The Egyptian government, which has governed for 25 years under emergency law and doesn't allow more than five people to gather unregistered, hit back hard, jailing young dissidents and torturing Ahmed Maher, a young activist who tried, unsuccessfully, to organize a second demonstration in early May.
Despite these setbacks, the "Facebook movement" in Egypt is significant for several reasons. First, it challenges the perception that there is no prospect for independent, secular opposition in the country. The majority of Egyptians are under 30 and have known no other ruler than Mubarak. They have not seen real political parties because the government has long restricted opposition parties and free media.
The Facebook movement engaged large numbers of youth for the first time. Second, the Web offers a safe political space -- a role the mosque has traditionally played in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood has for decades been the only viable opposition.
With Facebook, young secular people can communicate, build relationships and express their opinions freely. (Significantly, the Muslim Brotherhood opposed the successful April demonstration but supported the unsuccessful May event.) Every member in the 100,000-strong online community could be, at any given moment, a leader of a movement. Third, engaging Egypt's youth is an important item on the agenda of Mubarak's son, Gamal, as he works to gain support for his succession to power.
As a young politician, Gamal established the Future Generation Foundation in 2000, which incubated many of the current leaders of the ruling National Democratic Party and the new Cabinet. Facebook activists and their supporters should be able to turn to this group for support.
A few weeks ago, Belal Diab, a 20-year-old college student, interrupted one of the Egyptian prime minister's speeches to protest the arrests of Facebook activists, shouting: "Look who are you fighting; it is us, the younger generation who stood with you and supported you!"
Nevertheless, Facebook activists are being targeted by government-based media campaigns defaming the website and the youth activists who use it. The government also warns media not to talk about the phenomenon. I saw the heavy-handed efforts of the government while recording a TV show with Maher. During the taping, Egyptian police broke into the studio, threatened the station manager and forced the guest outside the room.
What can be done to help this movement? The international community and the U.S. government should pressure the Egyptian government to support Internet freedom and keep Facebook accessible to Egyptians. One young activist, Ahmad Samih, is campaigning to gain local and international support to prevent the Egyptian government from blocking Facebook.
So far, nearly 20 Egyptian human rights organizations are supporting this cause. International human rights organizations should publicly join in that show of support. Egyptian democrats are "Facebooking" their advocacy in order to escape heavy recriminations. It would be shameful for the international community not to stand up on their behalf against a government that seeks to deny them even that small space to express themselves.
Otherwise, Mubarak's self-fulfilling prophesy as the only alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood will continue to hold Egypt back from the democracy its people deserve.
-- Sherif Mansour, LA Times
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Jordan: 81 per cent of respondents support democratic principles - poll
AMMAN - Although a vast majority of Jordanians support democratic principles, many do not believe that citizens should have greater influence over the government’s decision making, according to the results of a poll on “Democracy and the Will of the People” released on Tuesday.
The survey, conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org and supported and coordinated by the Centre for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan, revealed that 81 per cent of respondents agreed that the will of the public should be the basis of the government’s authority.
In addition, 71 per cent believe that the government should be selected through elections in which all citizens can vote, according to the poll.
Some 44 per cent of respondents said the will of the public should have a greater influence over the government, 27 per cent thought it should stay the same, while 17 per cent felt that the public should have less influence over government affairs.
When asked how much the Kingdom should be governed by the will of people on a 10-point scale (10 representing “completely”), respondents gave an average response of 6.6, the second lowest of all the countries polled and well below the average national response of 8.0.
In the same poll, Iranian respondents reported an 8.4 rating, followed by Egypt (8.3) and the Palestinian territories (7.6).
Asked how much the country is currently being governed by the will of the public, however, respondents gave the Kingdom an average 5.4 rating, one of the highest in all polled countries.
A majority of respondents, some 54 per cent, said they trust the government to “do the right thing most of the time,” making Jordan one of five countries polled, where the majority held this view.
Some 38 per cent of respondents said they “just about always” trusted the government to do the right thing, while 41 per cent said they only trust the government “some of the time”.
In the same survey, 84 per cent of Egyptian, 55 per cent of Palestinian and 48 per cent of Iranian respondents said they trusted their government to do what is right “most of the time”.
Jordanians were divided on whether the Kingdom is run by big interests or by the will of the public, split evenly at 47 per cent apiece.
A vast majority of citizens, 89 per cent, reportedly favour the Kingdom’s leaders paying attention to public opinion polls when making an important decision, while 8 per cent believe that public opinion distracts leaders from using their own judgement.
In comparison, 72 per cent of Egyptians favour their government taking public opinion into account, while 68 per cent of Iranians, 47 per cent of Palestinians and 42 per cent of Turks also share that view.
The study, conducted in 19 nations across the world, concluded that in every nation polled, the public supports democratic principles, while majorities of nearly every nation are dissatisfied with how responsive their governments are to the will of the people.
The poll of 17,525 respondents was conducted between January and March of this year by a collaborative research project involving research centres from across the world and managed by the Programme on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.
By Taylor Luck, The Jordan Times
The survey, conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org and supported and coordinated by the Centre for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan, revealed that 81 per cent of respondents agreed that the will of the public should be the basis of the government’s authority.
In addition, 71 per cent believe that the government should be selected through elections in which all citizens can vote, according to the poll.
Some 44 per cent of respondents said the will of the public should have a greater influence over the government, 27 per cent thought it should stay the same, while 17 per cent felt that the public should have less influence over government affairs.
When asked how much the Kingdom should be governed by the will of people on a 10-point scale (10 representing “completely”), respondents gave an average response of 6.6, the second lowest of all the countries polled and well below the average national response of 8.0.
In the same poll, Iranian respondents reported an 8.4 rating, followed by Egypt (8.3) and the Palestinian territories (7.6).
Asked how much the country is currently being governed by the will of the public, however, respondents gave the Kingdom an average 5.4 rating, one of the highest in all polled countries.
A majority of respondents, some 54 per cent, said they trust the government to “do the right thing most of the time,” making Jordan one of five countries polled, where the majority held this view.
Some 38 per cent of respondents said they “just about always” trusted the government to do the right thing, while 41 per cent said they only trust the government “some of the time”.
In the same survey, 84 per cent of Egyptian, 55 per cent of Palestinian and 48 per cent of Iranian respondents said they trusted their government to do what is right “most of the time”.
Jordanians were divided on whether the Kingdom is run by big interests or by the will of the public, split evenly at 47 per cent apiece.
A vast majority of citizens, 89 per cent, reportedly favour the Kingdom’s leaders paying attention to public opinion polls when making an important decision, while 8 per cent believe that public opinion distracts leaders from using their own judgement.
In comparison, 72 per cent of Egyptians favour their government taking public opinion into account, while 68 per cent of Iranians, 47 per cent of Palestinians and 42 per cent of Turks also share that view.
The study, conducted in 19 nations across the world, concluded that in every nation polled, the public supports democratic principles, while majorities of nearly every nation are dissatisfied with how responsive their governments are to the will of the people.
The poll of 17,525 respondents was conducted between January and March of this year by a collaborative research project involving research centres from across the world and managed by the Programme on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.
By Taylor Luck, The Jordan Times
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Kuwait: In Democracy Kuwait Trusts, but Not Much
KUWAIT — In a vast, high-ceilinged tent, Ali al-Rashed sounded an anguished note as he delivered the first speech of his campaign for Parliament.
“Kuwait used to be No. 1 in the economy, in politics, in sports, in culture, in everything,” he said, his voice floating out in the warm evening air to hundreds of potential voters seated on white damask-lined chairs. “What happened?”
It is a question many people are asking as this tiny, oil-rich nation of 2.6 million people approaches its latest round of elections. And the unlikely answer being whispered around, both here and in neighboring countries on the Persian Gulf: too much democracy.
In a region where autocracy is the rule, Kuwait is a remarkable exception, with a powerful and truculent elected Parliament that sets the emir’s salary and is the nation’s sole source of legislation. Women gained the right to vote and run for office two years ago, and a popular movement won further electoral changes.
Despite those gains, Kuwait has been overshadowed by its dynamic neighbors — Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Qatar — where economies are booming under absolute monarchies. Efforts to overhaul Kuwait’s sclerotic welfare state have stalled in its fractious and divided Parliament, and scandals led the emir to dissolve the chamber last month for the second time in less than two years, forcing new elections.
All this has left many Kuwaitis deeply disenchanted with their 50-member elected legislature. The collapse of the Bush administration’s efforts to promote democracy in the region and the continuing chaos in Iraq, just to the north — once heralded as the birthplace of a new democratic model — have also contributed to a popular suspicion that democracy itself is one Western import that has not lived up to its advertising.
“People say democracy is just slowing us down, and that we’d be better off if we were more like Dubai,” said Waleed al-Sager, 24, who is advising his father’s campaign for Parliament.
Like many Kuwaitis, Mr. Sager quickly distanced himself from that view. But as the May 17 parliamentary elections approach, with near-constant coverage in a dozen new newspapers and on satellite television stations, candidates refer again and again to a “halat ihbaat” — state of frustration. His father, Mohammed al-Sager, a longtime member of Parliament, delivered his own opening campaign speech shortly after Mr. Rashed two weeks ago, and spent much of it urgently reminding his listeners of the need for an elected assembly.
“Some people have called for a permanent dissolution of Parliament,” he said, his face telecast on an enormous screen to a thick overflow crowd outside the tent. “But everywhere in the world — in Africa, in Palestine, in the old Soviet Union — people have turned to elections to solve their problems, not away from them. Whatever problems we have in our Parliament, we must remember that it is much better than no Parliament at all.”
One source of frustration has been the failure to reform Kuwait’s state-controlled economy. After the 2006 elections, many Kuwaitis were hoping for changes to cumbersome government rules that allow land to be allocated for business projects. Instead, the effort was blocked in Parliament. The slow pace of efforts to privatize the national airline and parts of the oil sector has also caused disappointment.
Many Kuwaitis also complain about government neglect of public hospitals and schools. Problems with the power grid caused brownouts last summer.
Although parts of Kuwait City were rebuilt after the Iraqi invasion of 1990, much of it looks faded and tatty, a striking contrast with the gleaming hyper-modernity of Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Qatar.
The current political malaise is especially striking because most Kuwaitis take pride in their nation’s relatively democratic traditions. The ruling Sabah family acquired its position not through conquest, but with an agreement among the coastal traders of the region in the mid-18th century. After Kuwait gained independence from the British in 1961, the emir approved a written Constitution that sharply limited his power in relation to Parliament.
“This ruling family is different from any other ruling family in the region,” said Ghanim al-Najjar, a newspaper columnist and professor of political science at Kuwait University. “They are part of the political process, not on top of it.”
In some ways, Kuwait is the most democratic country in the Arab world, aside from Lebanon. There are Arab republics — in Yemen, Egypt, Algeria, Syria, Iraq and Tunisia — but despite their democratic forms, those countries have generally been more autocratic and repressive than the region’s monarchies. Even in Lebanon, democracy is limited by a sectarian system of power-sharing.
In Kuwait, by contrast, tensions between the majority Sunnis and minority Shiites are minimal. Kuwaitis of all backgrounds mix socially at diwaniyas, the traditional evening gatherings where political and social gossip is shared over tea and coffee. There is some conflict between Islamists and liberals in Parliament, but with no officially recognized political parties, ideology is flexible and shifting.
And while there have been setbacks — the royal family suspended Parliament in the late 1970s and again in the late 1980s — Kuwait has grown steadily more democratic. Two years ago, popular pressure forced a change in the electoral districting law, making it harder to buy votes.
Women gained the right to vote and run in elections (though none have won seats). In mid-April, Kuwaiti democrats won yet another battle after the government tried to pass a law restricting public gatherings. There were popular demonstrations against the proposal, and the government backed down.
But those civic freedoms have come alongside signs of real frustration. Despite the world’s fifth largest oil reserves, many Kuwaitis are upset with the absence of business and investment opportunity, at least as compared with other countries nearby.
At a recent campaign rally, Abdul Rahman al-Anjari, a candidate for Parliament, pounded his fist on the lectern as he recited statistics showing that capital outflow and inflow in Kuwait was a small fraction of the numbers in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
“What does this mean?” Mr. Anjari said, standing in front of a vast banner bearing his name and those of three other candidates who favor privatization. “It means we are losing jobs to other gulf countries, and for no reason!”
It is unlikely that many Kuwaitis would be willing to trade their political rights and freedoms for more economic opportunity. But the notion that democracy is somehow holding Kuwait back is common.
“It’s true, the friction in our politics delays things,” said Kamel Harami, an oil analyst. “The sheik of Abu Dhabi can say, ‘Go build this,’ and it’s done. He doesn’t have me, the press, the TV stations, the Parliament, getting in his way. But what people need to understand is that democracy isn’t the problem; it’s that democracy isn’t being used correctly.”
Some Kuwaitis say the current emir, Sheik Sabah al-Ahmed al-Sabah, has deliberately fostered the idea that Parliament is the root of the country’s problems. When he called for new elections in March, the emir pointedly urged Kuwaitis to elect a Parliament that would help develop the country.
There is an authoritarian wing of the royal family that has long wanted to curtail Parliament’s powers, as happened in the late ’70s and the late ’80s. The royal family, which appoints the executive branch, has also used its influence to support parliamentary candidates from Kuwait’s more tribally oriented “Bedouin” population, because they were more pliant and less interested in political reform. They are also generally less wealthy, and many say the Bedouins (who no longer live in the desert as their ancestors did) are now resisting economic reforms because they believe they would not benefit from them as much as Kuwait’s urban merchant elite would.
But Parliament has its own share of responsibility. Reform legislation on foreign investment and other issues has consistently stalled. Parliament has also set off embarrassing controversies, when members subjected ministers from the non-elected executive branch to public questioning sessions — a practice known in Kuwait as grilling — intended to humiliate or force a resignation.
It was a grilling of the defense minister, and the prospect of a similar clash with the prime minister, that appears to have pushed the emir to dissolve Parliament.
Many younger Kuwaitis who took part here in what they called the Orange revolution two years ago, when street demonstrations helped press the government to overhaul the country’s election districting law, now seem cynical. One popular Kuwaiti blog posted a poem lamenting the absence of real change on the political scene, ending with the lines: “Restart does not work / neither does Turn Off / and we can’t leave the country on Stand By.”
Still, as the candidates troop from one diwaniya to the next in search of votes, any sort of retreat from democratic values seems unlikely.
“There are people who want to say, Look at democracy, look at what it causes,’ ” said Nawaf al-Mutairi, a business student. “But we know democracy is our last hope. The problem is just that democracy is incremental.”
-- Robert Worth, New York Times
“Kuwait used to be No. 1 in the economy, in politics, in sports, in culture, in everything,” he said, his voice floating out in the warm evening air to hundreds of potential voters seated on white damask-lined chairs. “What happened?”
It is a question many people are asking as this tiny, oil-rich nation of 2.6 million people approaches its latest round of elections. And the unlikely answer being whispered around, both here and in neighboring countries on the Persian Gulf: too much democracy.
In a region where autocracy is the rule, Kuwait is a remarkable exception, with a powerful and truculent elected Parliament that sets the emir’s salary and is the nation’s sole source of legislation. Women gained the right to vote and run for office two years ago, and a popular movement won further electoral changes.
Despite those gains, Kuwait has been overshadowed by its dynamic neighbors — Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Qatar — where economies are booming under absolute monarchies. Efforts to overhaul Kuwait’s sclerotic welfare state have stalled in its fractious and divided Parliament, and scandals led the emir to dissolve the chamber last month for the second time in less than two years, forcing new elections.
All this has left many Kuwaitis deeply disenchanted with their 50-member elected legislature. The collapse of the Bush administration’s efforts to promote democracy in the region and the continuing chaos in Iraq, just to the north — once heralded as the birthplace of a new democratic model — have also contributed to a popular suspicion that democracy itself is one Western import that has not lived up to its advertising.
“People say democracy is just slowing us down, and that we’d be better off if we were more like Dubai,” said Waleed al-Sager, 24, who is advising his father’s campaign for Parliament.
Like many Kuwaitis, Mr. Sager quickly distanced himself from that view. But as the May 17 parliamentary elections approach, with near-constant coverage in a dozen new newspapers and on satellite television stations, candidates refer again and again to a “halat ihbaat” — state of frustration. His father, Mohammed al-Sager, a longtime member of Parliament, delivered his own opening campaign speech shortly after Mr. Rashed two weeks ago, and spent much of it urgently reminding his listeners of the need for an elected assembly.
“Some people have called for a permanent dissolution of Parliament,” he said, his face telecast on an enormous screen to a thick overflow crowd outside the tent. “But everywhere in the world — in Africa, in Palestine, in the old Soviet Union — people have turned to elections to solve their problems, not away from them. Whatever problems we have in our Parliament, we must remember that it is much better than no Parliament at all.”
One source of frustration has been the failure to reform Kuwait’s state-controlled economy. After the 2006 elections, many Kuwaitis were hoping for changes to cumbersome government rules that allow land to be allocated for business projects. Instead, the effort was blocked in Parliament. The slow pace of efforts to privatize the national airline and parts of the oil sector has also caused disappointment.
Many Kuwaitis also complain about government neglect of public hospitals and schools. Problems with the power grid caused brownouts last summer.
Although parts of Kuwait City were rebuilt after the Iraqi invasion of 1990, much of it looks faded and tatty, a striking contrast with the gleaming hyper-modernity of Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Qatar.
The current political malaise is especially striking because most Kuwaitis take pride in their nation’s relatively democratic traditions. The ruling Sabah family acquired its position not through conquest, but with an agreement among the coastal traders of the region in the mid-18th century. After Kuwait gained independence from the British in 1961, the emir approved a written Constitution that sharply limited his power in relation to Parliament.
“This ruling family is different from any other ruling family in the region,” said Ghanim al-Najjar, a newspaper columnist and professor of political science at Kuwait University. “They are part of the political process, not on top of it.”
In some ways, Kuwait is the most democratic country in the Arab world, aside from Lebanon. There are Arab republics — in Yemen, Egypt, Algeria, Syria, Iraq and Tunisia — but despite their democratic forms, those countries have generally been more autocratic and repressive than the region’s monarchies. Even in Lebanon, democracy is limited by a sectarian system of power-sharing.
In Kuwait, by contrast, tensions between the majority Sunnis and minority Shiites are minimal. Kuwaitis of all backgrounds mix socially at diwaniyas, the traditional evening gatherings where political and social gossip is shared over tea and coffee. There is some conflict between Islamists and liberals in Parliament, but with no officially recognized political parties, ideology is flexible and shifting.
And while there have been setbacks — the royal family suspended Parliament in the late 1970s and again in the late 1980s — Kuwait has grown steadily more democratic. Two years ago, popular pressure forced a change in the electoral districting law, making it harder to buy votes.
Women gained the right to vote and run in elections (though none have won seats). In mid-April, Kuwaiti democrats won yet another battle after the government tried to pass a law restricting public gatherings. There were popular demonstrations against the proposal, and the government backed down.
But those civic freedoms have come alongside signs of real frustration. Despite the world’s fifth largest oil reserves, many Kuwaitis are upset with the absence of business and investment opportunity, at least as compared with other countries nearby.
At a recent campaign rally, Abdul Rahman al-Anjari, a candidate for Parliament, pounded his fist on the lectern as he recited statistics showing that capital outflow and inflow in Kuwait was a small fraction of the numbers in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
“What does this mean?” Mr. Anjari said, standing in front of a vast banner bearing his name and those of three other candidates who favor privatization. “It means we are losing jobs to other gulf countries, and for no reason!”
It is unlikely that many Kuwaitis would be willing to trade their political rights and freedoms for more economic opportunity. But the notion that democracy is somehow holding Kuwait back is common.
“It’s true, the friction in our politics delays things,” said Kamel Harami, an oil analyst. “The sheik of Abu Dhabi can say, ‘Go build this,’ and it’s done. He doesn’t have me, the press, the TV stations, the Parliament, getting in his way. But what people need to understand is that democracy isn’t the problem; it’s that democracy isn’t being used correctly.”
Some Kuwaitis say the current emir, Sheik Sabah al-Ahmed al-Sabah, has deliberately fostered the idea that Parliament is the root of the country’s problems. When he called for new elections in March, the emir pointedly urged Kuwaitis to elect a Parliament that would help develop the country.
There is an authoritarian wing of the royal family that has long wanted to curtail Parliament’s powers, as happened in the late ’70s and the late ’80s. The royal family, which appoints the executive branch, has also used its influence to support parliamentary candidates from Kuwait’s more tribally oriented “Bedouin” population, because they were more pliant and less interested in political reform. They are also generally less wealthy, and many say the Bedouins (who no longer live in the desert as their ancestors did) are now resisting economic reforms because they believe they would not benefit from them as much as Kuwait’s urban merchant elite would.
But Parliament has its own share of responsibility. Reform legislation on foreign investment and other issues has consistently stalled. Parliament has also set off embarrassing controversies, when members subjected ministers from the non-elected executive branch to public questioning sessions — a practice known in Kuwait as grilling — intended to humiliate or force a resignation.
It was a grilling of the defense minister, and the prospect of a similar clash with the prime minister, that appears to have pushed the emir to dissolve Parliament.
Many younger Kuwaitis who took part here in what they called the Orange revolution two years ago, when street demonstrations helped press the government to overhaul the country’s election districting law, now seem cynical. One popular Kuwaiti blog posted a poem lamenting the absence of real change on the political scene, ending with the lines: “Restart does not work / neither does Turn Off / and we can’t leave the country on Stand By.”
Still, as the candidates troop from one diwaniya to the next in search of votes, any sort of retreat from democratic values seems unlikely.
“There are people who want to say, Look at democracy, look at what it causes,’ ” said Nawaf al-Mutairi, a business student. “But we know democracy is our last hope. The problem is just that democracy is incremental.”
-- Robert Worth, New York Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)