I do not know the Speaker of Parliament, Mr Marzouq Al-Ghanim, and I have never met him, and there is nothing between me and him except for a phone call a few months ago that took seconds to praise a paragraph of an article, I do not remember its topic now.
This article is not in defense of anyone. Rather, it is merely to present a viewpoint of what happened during the election of the Speaker of the Assembly, the mess that prevailed, and what awaits us from the current parliament.
I say this and confirm that I do not belong to any political or religious trend and nothing can push me in this age and situation to change my opinion and convictions except the logic.
First of all, I do not think that Mr Marzouq Al-Ghanim was, in the opinion of many, not the best candidate, without question, to occupy the seat of the second man in the state in the last elections, but from the point of view of many, he was also the best of the candidates and this is not an understatement of the competence of the other side, but rather a justified fear of the orientations and tendencies of some members of the bloc that stood behind him, and struggled mostly for purely personal reasons to make him succeed, not out of love for him but rather hate for his competitor.
The Speakership election also showed the intentions and methods that the opposition leaders resorted against re-electing Al-Ghanim as Speaker. It showed the fear of many of them, especially after they questioned the sincerity of the intentions of the rest of their fellow MPs.
They resorted to the trick of photographing election papers with the barcode, and forcing them to swear an oath on the Holy Quran to vote for their candidate, and what followed that spying on election ballots and photographing the canceled, all of which are unconstitutional and immoral, and do not assure anyone of their confidence in the future, or handing them over to the helm of managing the legislative instrument in the country.
Also, all requests to form investigative committees in the events of the opening session, which may appear on the surface as justified, are meaningless. If the result was the opposite of what it ended, would they accept the request to form an investigation committee? How can they justify asking for something for themselves and rejecting it for others?
Consequently, those who disputed the result must honor us with their silence and use their authority, as deputies, to hold the Secretary-General of Parliament or others accountable for their failure to maintain order.
As for crying over women’s rights and status, and trying to criminalize ‘bad-mouthing’ Kuwaiti women by a supporter of Al-Ghanim, this would have been accepted had it not been for our good knowledge of their previous positions on women’s issues and rights.
Also, everyone who objected to the government’s vote being directed to one party without the other, we say this is only an assumption because the vote was secret and they made a mistake in their objection.
The government’s vote in the process of choosing the Speaker of the Assembly is a constitutional right that is not disputed. The government is free to cast its votes to who it deems appropriate, just as any other deputy would do with his vote, knowing that the government is not a foreign body, but rather a part of the people.
If the government’s votes had been given in favor of the other candidate, would we have heard and read about all the inappropriate characteristics that affixed the same government, president and members?
The answer, of course, is no, and therefore why this duality and this hypocrisy?
By Ahmad alsarraf