IN this interview, gender political expert Alanound Al Sharekh takes us through the maze of Kuwait’s political culture that evolved a unique home-grown system of democracy, ‘that is functional despite all its shortcomings.’ She puts in perspective the changing phases of women’s political rights and also tries to explain women’s quick rise to power following amendments in the election laws. She underlines the high qualifications of the female MPs as the most distinguishing merit compared to their male counterparts, ‘some of who don’t even have a high school degree.’ But does education alone make a true leader? Read on and find out more.

Question: Can you explain to our readers what gender politics is all about?
Answer: Well, basically it’s campaigning to get the rights for women in areas where they have been discriminated against. Kuwait had signed a UN covenant on the rights of women. Some of the laws in Kuwait were in direct conflict with this covenant. And some laws have been changed since then.
Before the 15th of May, 2005, women didn’t have political rights in Kuwait. So, Kuwait was the only Islamic democracy where women weren’t allowed to vote. We campaigned to change, and then we campaigned to get women into political office. And then we helped these women to change the laws.
For example, the passport law. It used to be that a woman could not renew her passport without the signed agreement of her husband. This was in direct conflict with the UN covenant and our constitution. There was a campaign to change the law after women got into the office and it was changed.

Q: How would you rate gender politics in Kuwait vis-à-vis other countries in the region?
A: Kuwait has been a very interesting case with respect to gender politics. We got women into the political office without a quota system. Many countries like Syria and Egypt had a quota system for women. We were struggling with this idea of quota system too. But it seemed unnecessary, because four women got into office in the very second elections that women faced. That was in 2009, within a short period of 4 years following the amendment of the law.
But still, these women in Parliament don’t fully represent the actual percentage of women in the population. Statistics shows more women vote in elections than men. But this type of cognitive recognition of women in authority takes time. So, in the first cabinet after 2005, they accepted the idea of appointing women as ministers. Dr Masouma Al Mubarak became the first female minister.
So, I think, Kuwait is very positive in that sense. In retrospect, people may hold different opinions about the performance of women MPs. Some say that they did not introduce enough changes and so on and so forth. But if you look at them, they all had one thing in common. They were all extremely qualified in terms of merit.
All four women had PhDs; they were all involved in civil societies in Kuwait or were involved in governmental work. In comparison, some of the male candidates don’t even have high school degrees. So, the difference is that women who make it into office are at least extremely qualified. And some of their backgrounds are close to a lot of the technical committees that they have in the National Assembly.

Q: Kuwait has always been eager to embrace change, unlike many countries in the region. Kuwait adopted a unique democratic system long ago, and always had a culture of free speech. What makes Kuwait so different? What’s it about this country that has helped it evolve a system so different from its huge neighbors?
A: Kuwait has a history of its people being involved in the political process of the country much more than what you find in other countries in the region, whether they are monarchies or republics.
Partly it is do with Kuwait’s socio-cultural realities. Kuwait is a combination of tribes, people who migrated from Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. So you have a mélange of people. Therefore, the political system in Kuwait from the start was based on the system of Mubayaha, which is a collective group agreeing on the one tribe to lead them, and also on the election process, so that the tribe in question can present its best man to lead, but then collectively the people will have to support his leadership.

So from the start there was a significant amount of political participation by the people in Kuwait. And this model was different from other GCC states. There have not been any bloody revolutions in Kuwait. Also, Kuwait from the very beginning had a very clear channel for people to express dissatisfaction. Of course it’s not in the style of Western democracy of ballot boxes and political parties. Kuwait’s intellectual elite went through pan Arab nationalism, Marxist ideas and so on. There was space for tolerance and self expression. Sometimes it took on somewhat confrontational phases. But even during the, what they called Monday Night Diwaniyas (this was in the 80’s before the Iraqi occupation) there was always a sense of self censorship from the citizens and a sense of patience and tolerance from the leadership. Because there was always a pact, an understanding between the people and the leadership of mutual respect.

This sentiment survived through the invasion, even though there were many losses. The people wanted the ruling family back in power to lead them, preserving this unique home-grown democracy. As a model it seems to work. It has its problems, but it’s a working model. As Kuwait progresses, its democracy becomes more inclusive. First, it was only centered on one gender, and before that it only included first class citizens. The system was somewhat myopic then, but now it has been broadening to include more and more people into it. Hopefully, there will room to include even more people into the democratic process.
Q: When you say more people, you must be referring to the stateless people, aren’t you?
A: The stateless issue was hovering for many years. It’s also the issue of migrant, refugees. But we don’t have a naturalization system to deal with this crisis.

Q: Can you term the stateless people in Kuwait as refugees?
A: I don’t know, because some of them come from Syrian descent, some from Iraqi descent. These are only geographical borders and not demographic borders. So, you can have the same tribe extend across the peninsula. It’s very difficult to say if this tribe is Qatari or Saudi Arabian. Geographically, a person can belong to a certain country, but ethnically he or she belongs to a tribe. So, if you have problems in Kuwait, you will find them moving to Saudi Arabia. Do you understand what I mean? These countries are only colonial borders. These geographical borders are not inherently organic to our area.

Q: You had an interesting take on women MPs and about their academic merits. What is your idea of leadership? Don’t you think a leader has to rise up from the ranks to be a true leader who knows the people? Or are you fine with the idea of technocrats or university professors at the helm of affairs?
A: Usually leaders in a democratic country come through a very long vetting process. First they have to rise through their own party to be the perfect candidate. And then they have to compete with other candidates of other parties. It’s not like how you see in some utopian, proletariat working class ideas. But the leaders usually go to the best universities; they usually hold political offices for years before becoming a leader. It is very hard to find someone who comes into the equation without years of political training. Even Obama went to the best schools; he went to Claremont in Harvard. He has a very impressive degree. He was a senator for years; he was in lobby groups for years. He didn’t come out of the blue to become the people’s leader.
So, what I am saying is that your education per se is not the issue. You don’t need to have a PhD to be a good leader; however, you need to have good training, and you need to rise through meritocracy. You can’t have a country run through a popularity contest. For me it’s a ridiculous system to have someone come into power merely through popularity and not merit and occupy important decision-making committees.

How can someone be in a technical or a fiscal committee without due qualification?

How can they make a multi-billion dollar decision simply because they are on top of the popularity chart?
If you have been educated, then at least you will have some grasp and feel of the post you are occupying and you will have interacted with members from all strata of society. Kuwait University is state run and you have students coming from all levels of the society and you have political groups within the university. So, it’s a microcosm of our society. You mentioned university professors; but at least they have that exposure I just mentioned, which is better than others whose only credit is their family. There you only know people from your community, be it an ethnic community or a commercial, trading community or tribal… how can you then claim to represent the whole of Kuwait.
So what I am looking for in a candidate is some sort of merit. It doesn’t always have to be academic qualification, it doesn’t have to be popularity, it doesn’t’ have to be Islamic rhetoric. It is what you have accomplished in your career that gives me the confidence to put my faith in you and give you my vote. But unfortunately in Kuwait you have people entering the Parliament from very inexperienced backgrounds. How can they be entrusted to make very huge decisions?

Q: Since you support meritocracy you must be against the idea of quota system for women. Are you?
A: No. It was an option for the civil society to consider. But then there were people who thought that this will make women look like the ‘other.’ We believed that the Kuwaiti public will elect women without a quota system. So, I was open to the idea of quotas, but I was aware of both sides of the argument. Once you open the door to the quota systems, then you might encourage other disenfranchised groups to ask for their own quota systems. And then you are in danger of making the parliament slide into minority blocs. But women have proven that anyone can get into the Parliament without a quota system.

Q: You said other disenfranchised groups… who are you alluding to?
A: A lot of disenfranchised groups feel that they have not been duly represented, for example the handicapped people. What I mean by disenfranchised groups is anybody who feels they have not been adequately represented.

Q: But then that is a serious issue in a country where meritocracy is still not the norm as you would like it to be. Say there is a large tribe that has not been adequately represented, then it would be difficult for this tribe to get its needs fulfilled without due representation. What could be a solution to that problem?
A: That’s the reason why we should move away from tribal politics and encourage political parties. So anything that is exclusive and shuts people out is dangerous. Whether you are talking in the name of chamber of commerce, or a tribe, or an ethnic group, or a sect, or political Islam… anything that designates your fellow Kuwaiti as the other, then I am against it. Why do we need Islamic parties when Kuwaitis are 99.9 percent Muslims? Are you saying that you are more Muslim than me? I find that kind of rhetoric offensive. It divides people and is a very easy vehicle to power.
So, I think we have to re-divide our constituencies in such a way that no particular tribe has a majority. We need to re-address the idea of electoral politics as a whole. If it is going to be a popularity contest, then we are having these problems. If we are ready, I think, we should introduce some form of a party system.

Q: You made an interesting point about how Islamism is an easy route to power. What exactly do you mean by that?
A: Look at Tunis, look at what you have in Syria.

Q: But what it shows is that Islamists have been able to win the hearts and minds of people, and the people want them. That’s democracy at play, isn’t it?
A: That’s what I am saying. Islam is the most common denominator for us all. So, if you are running on an Islam platform, that’s a very easy platform. You are preaching what we know and live by day to day. You are not giving us political solutions to political problems. And if you are asking people to vote for you on the grounds that you are a better Muslims, or a more conforming Muslim, then you are creating this idea of a mini Imam. This does not go with a secular state. If your merit according to you is that you are the most conforming Muslim, then there is an issue, because that is not merit actually.

Q: Whatever the strain of politics, when people are allowed to choose their representatives through a legitimate process of secret ballot, then shouldn’t you respect that decision? The Islamists are not usurping power through a coup; they are there because the people voted them in. What have you to say about that?
A: We do not have a mature political middle class anywhere in the region. We have a relatively immature one. In Tunis, they have a very active civil society and so their electoral process is a very civilized one. In the Tunisian model for an Islamist to come up, it is perfectly understandable, because they have been repressed during the past regime. So they make it back with a very healthy civil society.

Q: Isn’t that true of Egypt also?
A: There the civil society has been repressed and broken down systematically over 35 years of Mubarak. Yes, the Muslim Brotherhood had been very organized at the grassroots level. And they have been very good over a period of 10-15 years in courting western interests. They were using human rights violations to court western interests. Mubarak’s fall was engineered by lots of different groups. But the Muslim Brotherhood was in the best position to bear the fruits of the mass movement. They are excellent at organization, where other parties aren’t. Many of the leaders Muslim Brotherhood are well educated and come with a lot of political experience. I don’t like the banner of political Islam, but that doesn’t mean the Muslim Brotherhood don’t have the merit.

Q: How do you rate the performance of women MPs in the last term?
A: I think they all worked hard. At least two of them are deserving of a second chance. They instigated important changes. All four performed as individuals… as independent players they were all dedicated.

biography
Alanoud Al Sharekh is the Corresponding Senior Fellow for Regional Politics, International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Middle East, and her main responsibilities include conducting research on regional and global security as well as geoeconomic issues. She also defines and oversees the translation of key IISS publications into Arabic.

She was the Senior Political Analyst at the Kuwait National Security Bureau and prior to this worked as a gender politics consultant for UNIFEM, Freedom House, and the UNDP on academic and social outreach projects in Kuwait and the GCC. She holds a BA from King’s College, London and a Master’s and PhD from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). Her teaching posts include Kuwait University, Gulf University of Science and Technology, the Arab Open University, visiting lecturer at Uppsala University, Sweden, and Fulbright Scholar on Women and Islam at Whittier College, USA. She has published several books and articles on gender and kinship policies in the GCC.