Arab Reform Bulletin (ARB): Since the election of the current parliament in May 2009, relations between the parliament and the government seem to have improved, after many episodes in which the parliament was dissolved. In December, the prime minister agreed to be questioned by the parliament for the first time. Have relations changed and, if so, why?
Dashti: There is no question that Kuwait in the last four years has gone through a lot of political turmoil, which created frustration about the prospects for democracy. In the May 16, 2009 elections people voted for a change and sent the message that they were fed up with the bickering between the government and the parliament. The parliament, particularly the new members, understood the message very well. The first test came only three weeks into our session, when there was a request to interpellate the interior minister. The government accommodated the request and the interior minister went through interrogation and vote of no confidence procedure, and the parliament rewarded it by giving the minister a vote of confidence. It showed the government that if you're working and moving forward, you're going to get the support of the majority of the parliament.
After the recess there were requests to interpellate the prime minister, defense minister, interior minister, and municipality minister. The timing was very critical, because it happened just when Kuwait was hosting the Gulf Cooperation Council summit. There was tension in the air, because the prime minister is from the ruling family and might be a future emir. Luckily the government agreed to the interpellations and received in return votes of confidence for all four ministers, and as we say, the score was 4-0. So “4-0” has become a watchword to warn those who would like to disrupt stability and return to the old way of doing things.
ARB: The new parliament has also been able to pass some important legislation.
Dashti: The parliament wanted to move forward in the legislative process. We recently passed a very important law, which was the five year plan. It states the economic and social reform policies that the country is going to undertake, which are very important because there is a major shift in social and economic policies, moving from entitlement to engagement, from consumerism to productivity. Other important laws passed include a security commission law to organize the equity market, a private labor law and a law for special needs (disabled) citizens. There are a lot of economic reform laws in the pipeline: laws on privatization, commerce, and public procurement. On the social front, we will be looking into advancing women’s rights, health insurance, educational reform, and social assistance.
So now there is a parliament more focused on legislation than focusing on monitoring and supervision, and a sense from the people that the government no longer has any excuse not to deliver. While there is much more collaboration between government and parliament nowadays, this does not mean we will not interpellate and even impeach ministers. The minister of information might face a no-confidence vote. Meanwhile, we still have to regain the people’s trust, which will only happen once we start to deliver.
ARB: You are among the first four women elected to the Kuwaiti parliament. What impact has the election of women had on the parliament and on Kuwait society in general?
Dashti: Kuwaitis were extremely joyful about having women in parliament; it reminded me of the joy after the 1991 liberation. The four of us were invited every day to parties, festivals, gatherings; it was as though the campaign was still on. But with that joy come high expectations; people see women as saviors, as the ones who will bring real change.
Within the parliament, we had to learn quickly, figure out the political structure, and get engaged in the important committees. In fact the male members started complaining that “you women are taking over the committees,” because on every major committee—finance, legislation, foreign affairs, health, education—there was at least one woman. And this was when we had only been in parliament two or three weeks. After the recess we became more coordinated and managed to chair two very important permanent committees: education, media, and culture committee; and social affairs, labor, and health committee, which I chair.
Women members also have brought discipline to the parliamentary system itself. We attend committee meetings and do our homework, which embarrasses some of the male members who do not attend. We don’t engage in the mutual flattery which is traditional among male parliamentarians, and we don’t hesitate to tell the media who shows up for committee and who doesn’t. We are trying to change the bylaws because we cannot tolerate people being absent so much as they affect our output of finishing the required laws to send them to the floor for voting.
ARB: So a parliamentarian could lose his membership in a committee if he or she misses a certain number of meetings?
Dashti: Unfortunately, with the current bylaws, no. We want to change it so that it will. We want to say look, you fight to get in, and when you get in you don't contribute; that affects the work of the committee because we are delayed if we don't have a quorum. When it comes to how society perceives us now, most were happy that women won the elections, but still, there is a small group that isn’t happy about it and would like to show that women don't deliver and nothing change with their presence, and hence voting for women is not effective. Hence, another pressure for extra performance. There are specific procedures for passing and implementing laws, but citizens are impatient and think that within a month we should accomplish something. So we have to make people aware that we are working hard and the process for passing legislation takes time and that certain laws are scheduled for discussion in the floor soon, especially when we're talking about women's issues.
ARB: Are your votes on specific measures made public?
Dashti: Yes, people know how we voted on various issues. But we don't always vote in a populist way. For example there was a very popular law, which would have cancelled all interest on loans for citizens, for which we did not vote in favor of. Although it passed overwhelmingly in the parliament, fourteen parliamentarians—including the four women—opposed the law. And the government now has rejected it and society understood why we voted the way we did. Some people said “you are against the people,” but others said “this is the way we expected women to vote, on behalf of the national interest.” It is premature after only six months to say how much women have contributed to society's advancement as parliamentarians, but I think we are moving in the right direction. The other positive factor is that the four of us know each other well. We are all long time activists in our various fields—I am an economist, another is an educator, and another an expert in foreign affairs—and we trust each other’s judgment. So we are a caucus without saying we are a caucus. And we also coordinate closely with seven or eight of the male newcomers to parliament.
ARB: Kuwait is unusual in the region for having a legislative branch of government with real power. What in Kuwait's history or culture has allowed for this to happen when it hasn't in many other countries?
Dashti: The people of Kuwait and the ruling family always have had a pact, since the 1700's, whereby the al-Sabah family would manage and administrate while the business community would travel and bring income to the state via taxes. There was always a need for consensus, and there was always dialogue on various issues between the ruling family and the people.
ARB: But, there were also long periods where the parliamentary life was suspended.
Dashti: Yes, during the 1970s and 1980s, and people were vocal about it. So freedom of expression was deeply embedded in the culture of Kuwait. Before the 1990 invasion, parliament was suspended and there was a lot of tension, and Iraq thought that because of this, Kuwaitis would not support the ruling family. But the Iraqi regime did not realize that while we differ among ourselves on management of the country, we do not differ on who rules the country. And this is why you saw everybody in Kuwait rallying behind the ruling family. Kuwait is a democracy, and after liberation it became the norm that if parliament is ever dissolved, it must be done constitutionally. And I think that having the prime minister being questioned by the parliament also reinforces democratic processes in Kuwait. This is how we look to the future, because we think that sharing power and decision making is extremely important and this is how we can build lasting stability.
ARB editor Michele Dunne conducted this interview.