WHEN studying the political scene in Kuwait, we are led to ask the following: Do we have proper, established relations between the two authorities - the legislative and the executive - in accordance with the constitutional text and based on sound democratic foundations? Or is it like a building that is made of paper and gets blown away by a breeze, leaving behind no traces?

From the 1960s, after we agreed on a democratic system, Kuwait faced several crises. They accumulated over the years, until they became very difficult to solve, because the understanding of democracy was governed by tribal or sectarian fear, and the game of interests.

This is why a sound relationship has not been established between the government and the parliament. The government is usually seeking to restrict the parliament in accordance with the visions of the Prime Minister or the ministerial majority. The parliament persists in taking advantage of the constitutional loopholes and undermining the cooperation between the two authorities in order to dominate the executive administration.

The encroachment of powers, and even bypassing them, represents the tool used by the parliamentary blocs at several occasions, preventing the interests of those in control of it from approving laws that do not meet their interests, or do not serve any tribe and sect, as if the country were “cantons” and not a single state.

That is why appointments, even of the head of a police station or just an employee, were carried out based on the relationship between the minister and the parliamentarian. This quickly turned into a crisis, sometimes leading to the dismissal of the Council of Ministers or the dissolution of the National Assembly.

In recent years, this trend ended in something resembling administrative chaos and the takeover of industrial, agricultural, health, and education sectors, through laws that were tailored to suit the interests of the powerful, and not in the interest of Kuwait.

Throughout the decades that followed the liberation, all governmental attempts to pass laws that served the people had failed. The ones that the legislative authority passed under parliamentary pressure, the Kuwaitis did not accept, such as the law preventing coeducation, and the so-called “negative phenomena” to the point of inspecting people’s intentions.

Unfortunately, the encroachment was not limited to the powers of ministers, but also reached the judicial authority, and we saw persistent attempts to dominate it.

No one did anything to prevent this parliamentary encroachment on the two authorities, except for an attempt that took place during the era of the late Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmad but that attempt was met with storms of denunciation, which led to the dissolution of the parliament in 1986 and the suspension of the constitution. It was one of the preludes, as we mentioned yesterday, to the Iraqi invasion.

At that time, there was no strong government working to convince the parliamentarians about the necessity of updating the Constitution and marketing its vision to the people. Also, the regional situation was encouraging tension and inflaming the relations between the social and political components.

All of this was not taken into consideration after the liberation. Rather, things went in the opposite direction, and the control over projects was used to serve personal agendas.

It was as if Kuwait was not a final homeland, but instead a temporary state. In order for these people to seize the highest number of benefits, they deliberately closed the country, for fear of competition.

This dismal scene in Kuwait has affected its economy, and spread corruption in it. Loyalty to the tribe and sect ended up being before the homeland.

On the other hand, the countries of the region moved toward openness to the world, and developed at a record speed, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman, all of which preceded Kuwait by light years.

This is because in all countries of the world, the head of state can stop any tampering if he has access to a trustworthy group of competent advisors.

The Gulf countries, when they gained independence from Britain in 1970, did not abandon foreign experts. Rather, these experts stayed for years until the people of the country accumulated experience, and worked to build a correct identity based on loyalty to the homeland.

In fact, this is what all countries, which went through difficult periods, did, because they realized from the beginning that they would not be able to progress without the help of others.

In China, when a British academic of Iraqi origin, Elias Korkis, who was called the pioneer of the Chinese Renaissance, was hired, no one objected, neither from the ruling party nor from the tribes and sects of that country.

Therefore, it is necessary to work quickly, because time wasted can never be recovered, and we should not reach the point of crying over spilled milk.

By Ahmed Al-Jarallah

Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times