THE strong imposes his will on the weak in order to protect his interests. Whenever he is close to the decision maker, he takes advantage of the closeness to make his priorities a program of action for the state as a whole.

When the dominant’s power of money was higher than the state of institutions, its kingpins sought to consolidate customs and financial traditions that suit their interests. Therefore, the “Deed of Acknowledgement of Debt” had great power that amounted to selling the debtor’s property, as well as imposing servitude on him and his household.

In the state of institutions, they worked to impose their will on the state through their influence in parliaments and their dominance over the executive authority.

They worked to protect their interests through a series of laws, including physical coercion in debt securities, cheques without balance, whether that be in seizing and selling property, or imprisonment until debts are paid, travel bans, seizure and habeas corpus, and other measures taken through a law drawn up by merchants and creditors to protect their interests.

These procedures do not exist in any other country in the world, because the principle in the debt is fulfilled through a sound financial cycle. Hence, when the debtor is imprisoned, he falls under a deficit and therefore does not pay the money he owes.

The legal system in other countries tends to preserve rights by facilitating the debtor through installments, rescheduling, and reducing interest, and not restricting his freedom because that prevents him from working to pay what he owes others.

Unfortunately, this rule is not applied in Kuwait, as even when the law was amended to limit physical coercion, the parliamentary bloc supporting merchants worked to undermine it, and the judge finds no alternative but to rule based on the text before him. When he finds clear injustice in the procedures, all he can do is to refrain from pronouncing judgment.

Undoubtedly, the balance favors the side of the merchants who strive to preserve their interests, and they hence seek harsh measures that, from their point of view, preserve their rights. Because of their influence in the two authorities, they prevent any law that limits their freedom of action, in contrast to the banks where their rights are preserved through in-kind mortgages, rescheduling, and debt insurance.

On the other hand, other Gulf states have worked to amend their laws in a manner commensurating with preserving the rights of all people, by holding the creditors responsible for preserving their rights, and by not lending to those who do not have the ability to pay. Thus they acted on the religious legal rule that the fine falls on the creditor for his lack of due diligence, and not on the debtor. When the decision-making is absent in the government, or is subject to the influence of merchants through their parliamentary blocs that seek to strengthen its power, the matter requires awareness from the executive authority and decision-makers in order to seek equality between people by not tipping the balance of justice to the interests of one group over another.

This is due to the fact that it will lead to more chaos, in light of the 120,000 citizens who are subjected to physical coercion, travel bans, and suspension of procedures in a bid to put pressure on them, while they are already suffering from insufficient income to spend on their daily needs.

By Ahmed Al-Jarallah

Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times