This is why it should be re­jected

Kuwait Times - - FROM THE ARABIC PRESS - By Ab­del­latif Al-Duaij

Ama­jor­ity of peo­ple ob­jected to, or rather ridiculed, the re­li­gious doc­u­ment that was put out for sign­ing lately, be­cause most of those who signed it do not be­lieve in it or have be­hav­iors that are con­trary to its con­tent in their per­sonal lives. This ma­jor­ity may be truth­ful and right, but this ma­jor­ity re­gret­fully over­looked that the doc­u­ment con­tra­dicts the con­sti­tu­tion to start with, as well as demo­cratic prin­ci­ples and the rules and ori­gins of rul­ing in Kuwait. This makes it con­tra­dic­tory with Na­tional As­sem­bly elec­tions. It is good to be signed by any re­li­gious per­son any­where, but not by some­one who is a can­di­date, and this should have been the ba­sis of op­pos­ing it.

Run­ning for the As­sem­bly means ac­cept­ing the con­sti­tu­tion, the oath to re­spect it and the un­der­tak­ing to pro­tect it from those want­ing to mess with it. The un­der­tak­ings men­tioned in the doc­u­ment con­tra­dict the demo­cratic sys­tem and put down the con­sti­tu­tion. The doc­u­ment re­jects demo­cratic prin­ci­ples and clashes with many of the con­sti­tu­tional ar­ti­cles that those who signed it will swear to re­spect.

It is not an ac­ci­dent that the Ara­bic al­pha­bets “NRFD”, which means we re­ject, are the same that are used in “NFRD”, which means we im­pose, be­cause the mean­ing is the same, as re­jec­tion and im­pos­ing are two un­demo­cratic prin­ci­ples and be­hav­iors. You pro­pose and not im­pose, and you op­pose and not re­ject, as both re­jec­tion and im­pos­ing are con­trary to the demo­cratic sys­tem and clash with the Kuwaiti con­sti­tu­tion in par­tic­u­lar. So sign­ing this doc­u­ment con­tra­dicts the con­sti­tu­tion, and should not be done by a can­di­date run­ning in the As­sem­bly elec­tions.

The bad suc­ces­sive gov­ern­ments and cow­ard­li­ness of the demo­cratic na­tional pow­ers led to re­li­gious groups be­ing au­da­cious over the con­sti­tu­tion and demo­cratic sys­tem. Tin­ker­ing with con­sti­tu­tional ar­ti­cles be­came ac­cept­able and al­lowed, es­pe­cially ar­ti­cle 91 of the par­lia­men­tary oath of of­fice which re­li­gious groups were keen on openly ma­nip­u­lat­ing by adding what they be­lieved in and the con­di­tions re­lated to the oath’s text, which makes the oath void. But with re­gret, none of the elder law­mak­ers were coura­geous to con­front this, ex­cept Dr Salah Al-Ateeqi, who was the elder law­maker in 2012 As­sem­bly.

The doc­u­ment - which some of these back­ward peo­ple are proud of - is against the con­sti­tu­tion and con­tra­dicts the be­hav­ior of its signees and re­veals their fak­e­ness and hypocrisy, be­cause the As­sem­bly can­di­date should be a be­liever in per­sonal free­dom and sup­port plu­ral­ism and dif­fer­ences. Also, any can­di­date who signs it should be struck out be­cause he ad­mits in ad­vance that he does not re­spect the state’s sys­tem and con­sti­tu­tion.

—Trans­lated by Kuwait Times

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Kuwait

© PressReader. All rights reserved.