On February 25, I wrote in this column an article titled "The False Malaise of Kuwaiti Politics".
In it, I argued that over the past 50 years, Kuwait has been a prototype for what happened to a tiny entity which has mastered how to harness its oil wealth and survive in a hostile environment and put to great use its oil wealth to benefit its own little population and share it through mega development projects with the less fortunate countries and peoples.
I concluded, "In the final analysis, the false malaise should not be exaggerated. Moreover, the negative image which some Kuwaitis and other Gulf and Arab intellectuals feel about Kuwaiti representative politics should not take away from its pioneering and its indelible prints."
There has been some tinkering in Kuwaiti politics down the path of political reforms and democratisation which has gripped the region with the Bush administration's crusade to democratise the region.
In the naïve belief that democracy, and not changing the eschewed policy, will end terrorism against the US.
In the false hope that bringing freedoms and democracy to this barren desert of autocracy and authoritarian regimes will turn things around in favour of moderation and stem the flood of terrorism and render the US victorious in the battle of hearts and minds in the Arab World which the US is losing hands down.
But Kuwait is a pioneer and has embarked on serious political reforms by enfranchising women and reducing the electoral districts from 25 to five districts to diminish the undemocratic practices of vote-buying, constituencies moving and the influence of tribes, sects and the influence of money power.
Drive
Kuwait experienced its own democratic drive much earlier than the defunct crusade which even its die-hard advocates, the neoconservatives, have abandoned, albeit keeping lip service rhetoric.
The US President George W. Bush repeated unconvincingly in Sharm Al Shaikh in Egypt his hollow rhetoric and lecture on freedom and democracy in the region last week after Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak walked out.
Kuwaitis went to the polls last week to elect the 12th parliament in five decades, and for the first time under the new five constituencies with enlarged districts and more representative outcome.
The election was hotly contested. In a lively exercise in representative politics, it put a dent in the bad feeling which has started to seep into politics and tarnishes its shining example.
The outcome was expected. All political groups (political parties are banned), liberals, Islamist from different stripes and independents saw their numbers shrinking.
The exception was the Salafi Islamists and tribal candidates who prevailed, thereby making the new parliament more Islamist with Salafi flavour and more conservative with tribal influence.
The turnover was 44 per cent with 22 first-time members of parliament. Twenty-eight members of parliament retained their seats with Islamists forming the largest single bloc of 22 Islamists.
But they are not a monolithic group. They are divided into four different groups. The liberals held their own at a lowly four. The Shiites increased their numbers from four in the last parliament to five - all Islamists.
The turnout was one of the lowest at 60 per cent with women participation lower than men as was the case in the previous elections. Once again, women betrayed their female candidates.
Out of 275 candidates 27 were female candidates as was the number in the election in 2006. Once again not a single woman was able to break through and make it to the parliament.
What compounded the female candidates' dilemma is the fact that the number of female voters is over 200,000, in comparison to 161,000 male voters. Such fact begs the eternal question.
Why were women not able to even elect a single woman to the parliament, being the majority of voters? The real challenge is how and when will the female candidates in Kuwait be able to break the glass ceiling.
The result is a parliament more of the same with more conservative and tribal alliances with the Islamists where there is not a single dominant bloc or group.
This translates into loose and fragile alliances which are subject to fragmentation and manipulation. With rife disagreements over issues, priorities and practices, especially grilling of ministers - which is the only real weapons of power in the hands of the MPs -any MP could use and abuse this right.
It can spark confrontation and usher in gridlock and stalemated politics. Kuwaitis despise such political misuse of power and others in the region look at it as a major stumbling block towards development and getting things moving.
Foreign assessment of the election results was negative for a country decides who will represent it. The Financial Times opined "Kuwait pays price for democracy".
The Economist pointed out: "It just slows things down... An experiment in democracy fails to inspire the neighbours", and Oxford Analytica claimed "Election outcome unlikely to end confrontation".
Such bleak assessments are not only discouraging but alarming and do not appreciate the meaning of Kuwait representative politics which needs to evolve from within and requires time and incremental change at our pace not at others.
We should not despair. Because as I have argued earlier, for Kuwaitis, and for all others who dream of living in a country where the final say rests with us - the citizens.
After 50 years of its inception, the Kuwaiti experience will continue to be emulated. That by itself is a testimony of its resilience, without ignoring the need for reform and development.
Dr Abdullah Al Shayji is a Professor of International Relations and the Head of the American Studies Unit- Kuwait University.
