ABSENT POLITICAL PLANNING
The preludes that lead to a clash between the executive and legislative branches are not strange. Indicators of change in the parliamentary structure were very clear with the entrance of personalities who had well known stands during previous assemblies, and their return following their decision to end their boycott. It was also clear with the entrance of a group of youth, and if they were not a part of the political movement following the one vote system, they are a part of the intellectual and political change faction.
It is clear that there are points of agreement between the youth MPs group and their constituents with other members of Parliament who ended their boycott during the 2016 elections. This is shown evident by the current parliamentary activity, or rather the change in the path of political accountability that sometimes requires sharp parliamentary escalation against the government.
May be the messages that are being exchanged inside the National Assembly, which directed towards the executive authority, and to His Highness the Prime Minister in particular, confirms the points of agreement. The current political scene is not characterized by ambiguity as far as the demands of some MPs go, and it is not right to take that lightly, but it is possible to feel the government’s lack of proper political reading of the total change in the new parliamentary structure, and the direction that grilling motions are taking, compared to the previous assembly.
There are deep political complications cumulated since the ministerial formations of previous cabinets, accompanied by failure in dialogue with the parliament, in addition to legitimate popular reservations over the nature of government action towards many projects, policies and humble performance by some ministers, especially in regards to policies that came under the banner of reform. An example of such policies is the government’s economic and financial reform document, which continues to attracting severe opposition, both from the parliament and public, due to its weak aspects and total absence of effective media campaign, that should have been there before the document was first announced.
The government should have considered many indicators, then studied and analyzed them. The government has departments, some are new, like Kuwait’s center for public policies and state ministry for economic affairs, and some are old such as state ministry for national assembly affairs, information ministry, and the cabinet’s secretariat general. It appears that those bodies did not present any studies to gauge public opinion, or even the response of intellectual and political factions within the National Assembly.
Kuwait’s center for public policies, which is considered a new product of the development plan, organized at the start of its activities a lecture on “the vision for the period after the US Presidential elections.” However, we are yet to see any scientific analysis of the local political situation that determines the scientific means in dealing with all what is new. Studying and analyzing the local political scene is more deserving then analyzing the American elections, unless the goal is to export studies about America from Kuwait to the international research centers.
What is missing from us is a pragmatic scientific study of the current situation and the future of relations between the two authorities, in addition to the public opinion’s directions, so that this study would help the government deal with future challenges without relying on its usual reaction policy. Political stability is not built on the action and reaction method, as planning and political monitoring must be institutional. If the situation remains as it is, then there will be a clash without a doubt.