Friday, December 18, 2009 - 7:31 PM
Guest Post by F. Gregory Gause III
On Wednesday, Dec. 16, the Kuwaiti parliament, for the first time in its history held a confidence vote on the prime minister. Shaykh Nasir al-Muhammad won the vote by a margin of 35-13, with one abstention. This may sound like ordinary Parliamentary politics. In Kuwait, it isn't.
The Kuwaiti constitution allows the legislature to declare an "inability to cooperate with the government" by a majority vote of the elected representatives. (There are 50 elected members of the Kuwaiti parliament; government ministers also have a vote in the parliament, but not on confidence votes.) But, in the past, when such votes were threatened the Amir either accepted the government's resignation (usually reappointing the prime minister to form a new government) or dissolved the parliament, rather than subject a senior member of the Al Sabah family to a confidence vote.
It was only in the last year or so
that the ruling family has allowed confidence votes on its members who
held ministerial positions. The parliament can also vote no
confidence in individual ministers, who must resign if they cannot get
majority support of the elected members. Shaykh Jabir al-Khalid, the
Interior Minister, survived such a confidence vote yesterday (Dec. 17)
by a narrower majority -- 26-18, with 5 abstentions. A confidence
motion on the prime minister is unprecedented.
This is a big step in Kuwaiti politics, a confirmation of
constitutional government and, one hopes, the beginning of the end of
the stand-off between the legislature and the government that has led
to six different governments since February 2006 and three elections
since June 2006.
Who voted for the PM and who voted against? The voting line-up is not "official," since the government insisted
that the session be closed, but was reported by those in attendance.
The line up of the vote, according to al-Hayat, was as follows: Those
opposed to the prime minister were the Popular Action bloc (headed by
former parliament speaker Ahmad al-Sa'dun) and the "Reform and
Development" bloc, a group of independent Islamist and tribal MP's.
Standing with the PM were the liberals (except Salih al-Mulla, who
abstained), the salafi Islamist bloc headed by Khalid al-Sultan, Shi'a
parliamentarians and assorted tribal and independent MP's. All four
women MP's voted with the PM.
Why the government insisted on closing the session was not made clear; perhaps it was some vestigial worry about embarrassing the PM. It would have been better to have the session be public, for purposes of transparency and popular involvement. But, still, this marks an important turn in Kuwaiti politics, possibly toward more of a "constitutional monarchy" model. The next step will be allowing a confidence motion in the prime minister when the outcome is not so easy to predict. But this vote is certainly a step forward from the constant atmosphere of crisis, parliamentary dissolution and early election that has characterized Kuwaiti politics since the messy succession of Sabah al-Ahmad to the position of amir in January 2006.
F. Gregory Gause, III is professor of political science at the University of Vermont. His latest book, just published, is The International Relations of the Persian Gulf (Cambridge University Press, 2010).
One would say, the constant dismissal of parliament indicates certainly, a deep malaise in the Kuwaiti political system. Despite the fact that, the country stands the best chance; through its economic resources and the politcial awareness of its people, to be a model state for the region, yet, the constant inability of the recent successive governments to allocate the proper resources to the proper projects, and their inability to justify themselves for the representatives of the Kuwaiti people, have and will, continue to force Kuwait into an endless political vaccume.
khairi janbek.paris/france
What a difference six years makes. None of these advances in the development of a democratic constitutional process in Kuwait would be happening if the Baath regime and Saddam Hussein were still in power in Iraq. Neither would the emergence of the Iranian democratic "Green" movement have occurred if Saddam were still in power next door.
The removal of the Baath regime and the facilitation by the US of the representative constitional democracy Iraq is exercising today is having the knock on effect to Iraq's neighbours that the neos always predicted. Kuwait today, Gulf tomorrow .... after that, Jordan and Egypt? That's the story western experts aren't willing to canvass yet.
To tell you the truth Mr./Ms. bb, and one is no fan of late Saddam Hussein, Kuwait was wctually known for its democratic governance, and freedom of press in the 1970s . Even more than now.
khairi janbek.paris france
Have read that Iraq too was supposedly a better place in the pre Saddam era.
My point remains - none of this would be happening today - 21st century - in Kuwait or Iran if Saddam and the Baath had not been removed from power and replaced by a representative constitutional democracy with a guaranteed 25% representation for women in its COR.
This development led to Kuwait finally giving women the vote, and then 4 women being elected to the Kuwait parliament earlier this year.
The developments in Kuwait had nothing to do with US invasion of Iraq. Kuwait had always a strong parliament, in which at times secular opposition, at times nationalist opposition, and at times the Muslim Brotherhood played major roles in demnading that the successive governments be accountable. As for electing women or appointing them wherever parliaments are in existence in the Arab world, it is just a matter of the sign of the time, irresprctive of those appointments being cosmetic or effective.
khairi janbek.paris/france
wow, nice article and i think your vistors will also like the discount ugg boots and women's ugg boots for winter.
Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
Read More
(6)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE