The experience of the National Assembly of Kuwait is considered one of the most distinctive Arab parliamentary experiences, as it combines a written constitution, periodic elections, and a relatively broad space for political competition and accountability. However, it has been an incomplete experience, as its powers have periodically clashed with the executive branch, in addition to cases of dissolution and suspension.
Since 1962, the National Assembly has been part of Kuwait’s political contract based on consultation, participation, and a balance between the ruling family and society, which has led Kuwait to be repeatedly described as a unique case in the Gulf and the Arab world.
Therefore, the experience is not measured solely by the existence of a parliament, but also by its ability to exercise questioning powers, hold votes of confidence, and raise public issues. As a result, elections have produced opposition blocs and figures, including Islamists, liberals, and independents, and have allowed for a degree of genuine debate within the National Assembly. This dynamism has also been reflected in the rising level of political discourse. However, competition was not entirely open, and the legislative authority was not always stable or immune. Many analysts believe the experiment required a fundamental review and reassessment. It also led to distortions and negative consequences, including recurring social and political conflicts that deviated from the norm and widespread corruption.
The failure of the experience became evident when parliamentary competition was polluted by the buying of loyalties and attempts at material gain, which harmed society as a whole. Intervention was therefore deemed necessary to end this approach and restore order and discipline in society. As a result, a decision was made to suspend certain articles of the constitution in order to review positions and implement the necessary political, social, and economic changes.
Democracy refers to the rotation of power, as in Western republics and elsewhere. There are imperfect democracies that are considered productive and stable, where social justice prevails and, in some aspects, may even surpass that of Western democracies. Wouldn’t it be better for us, at this stage, to have a free press with broad scope and genuine, responsible freedom of expression, rather than a weakened parliament unable to hold the government accountable fully? However, a free press alone cannot be considered a complete substitute for parliament, as democracy is generally understood to include popular sovereignty, elections, separation of powers, and mechanisms for public and institutional accountability.
Nevertheless, the existence of a free press, especially during transitional phases, is crucial as it serves as an important watchdog. The government can also benefit from the press in gauging public and elite opinion on its performance, identifying shortcomings and deficiencies, and addressing them. The press plays a supervisory, cultural, educational, and political role, and is a critical factor in exposing corruption and preventing abuses. It acts as a watchdog over government performance, even in light of the broad powers granted to the Cabinet during the transitional phase. At the same time, it is important to regulate the press through a flexible law that prevents unfounded accusations or deliberate defamation without evidence.
