‘50 constituencies would be better’
UNESCO Peace Chair Nalapat in Kuwait as election observer
KUWAIT CITY, Dec 1: Sabah-ism is better than Wahabbism for the Arab world, and the best electoral model for Kuwait would be 50 constituencies with one MP each, says UNESCO Peace Chair Madhav Das Nalapat, who is in Kuwait as a state-invited election observer.
This is the third election in Kuwait that Nalapat is observing and he takes great academic interest in Kuwait’s democracy and deems it an exemplary model for the rest of the region.
He was speaking to the Arab Times on the eve of the elections about the observations he had made from his meetings with a cross section of the Kuwaiti society and various academics and political experts in the three days that he had been in the state.
Sabah-ism is the name he has given to the moderate, inclusive and pragmatic political culture created by Kuwait’s rulers, as against the hard line and exclusivist ideology of Wahabbism. “Moderate socialism in which people have the power to choose will be the norm in the Arab world.”
Well versed in Kuwait’s political history and evolution, Nalapat supported the latest amendment in the election law of reducing the number of votes per person to one from four. This will restrict the larger groups from fixing the election by eliminating the smaller groups, “thus aiding true democracy.”
However, Nalapat was not comfortable with the idea of 5 constituencies. A good model, from his perspective, is to have 50 constituencies, each sending one candidate to the Parliament. “This will create a closer link between the MPs and their electorate.”
Nalapat added that dividing the country into 50 constituencies should ensure that the population is evenly distributed between them, unlike the current fourth and fifth constituencies, which have a larger population than the first three.
The election observer finds the unending conflict between the legislative and executive bodies in Kuwait worrying, “because it has slowed down the process of development a lot in the last several years. I hope their disagreements will be resolved after this election.”
When asked about the need for political parties in Kuwait, Nalapat responded that the dynamics of a small country and the dynamics of a large country are very different, alluding to the notion that Western models are the most ideal mod- els to follow.
He took the example of Maldives, “where you have got party democracy, yet it’s a mess. So, there is a small country dynamic which is different from a large country dynamic. We blindly assume that what the West tells us is always right. Many times, if you are not a westerner and if you follow western prescriptions then it could be harmful to you.”
Nalapat expressed faith in the discretionary powers of the people of Kuwait, and said that Kuwait will evolve its own system of democracy that is best suited for it.
From his interactions with the people of Kuwait, Nalapat said he felt the protests in Kuwait are being seen through the lens of the larger regional upheavals, and there is rising concern.
“People are worried about Egypt, and the economic turmoil in the country alongside the deterioration of law and order. They see similar problems in Tunisia and also in Libya. The violence in Syria is fanning fear. Economic and social conditions are worsening in the region.”
Kuwaitis want to avoid such a situation. Kuwaitis are generally 70 percent happy. They are only 30 percent dissatisfied, “which is a very positive picture when compared to other countries in the region that saw revolutions. Prior to the revolutions Egyptians would have been 10 percent happy, Tunisians may be 20 percent, while Libyans 40 percent.”
Nalapat said that Kuwaitis are worried that if the status quo is disturbed the 70 percent happiness might drop to 20 percent. That’s a risk they don’t want to take.
When asked what the dissatisfaction is about in Kuwait, the election observer named the economic advantages enjoyed by some groups over others through influence. “In every society who you know matters, a phenomenon called “Wasta.” The 30 percent of the population that don’t have Wasta want greater equality and fairer distribution of economic opportunities.”
Nalapat was not shy to blame regional players for undermining the democratic process in Kuwait. “They don’t want democracy to succeed in Kuwait, and are looking for ways to discredit democracy in the state.” He refrained from spelling out their names, and sufficed it by saying “Kuwaitis know who those foreign powers are.”
From his experiences as an election observer in Kuwait, Nalapat feels Kuwaitis are very proud of their right to vote and their democracy.
“There’s self respect and self confidence among the Kuwaitis. They are ready to speak out, and have an independent mind, which is important in a knowledge economy. If you have a regimented mind it may be good for a mechanical age.”
About his role as an election observer, Nalapat said that he has not faced any restrictions from the authorities. “We are free to talk to anybody, meet anybody. The information ministry has given us complete logistical support to meet whom we want, whenever or wherever we want. Even developed countries like the US and Europe resort to embedded journalism in the coverage of their elections,” the UNESCO peace chair noted in praise of Kuwait.
Nalapat is also Professor of Geopolitics at Manipal University. The former Coordinating Editor of the Times of India, he writes extensively on security, policy and international affairs, and is a columnist for the Sunday Guardian and the Pakistan Observer.