It Almost Was Lost... If Not for Him

I will speak about a subject that most people hesitate to address, yet I delve into its details without reservation, as I am in my own national space and have dedicated most of my articles to preserving it, away from the spaces and arenas of others.

I ask directly: What would have been the state of Kuwait and its citizens had the previous socio-political approach continued during the war that erupted in the region?

In the post-liberation period, racist, tribal, sectarian, and confessional discourse gradually began to overshadow the unifying national discourse. Governments handled the issue not out of concern for its risks to national security and social cohesion, but on the basis of accommodating and favoring various currents, without discarding the premise of “divide and rule.”

There was short-sightedness, and no one expected to see Kuwait resembling the situation witnessed in Arab and Islamic countries prior to their upheavals. We developed something called “muhasasa” (sectarian/tribal quota system) in everything, from forming governments to distributing positions across various sectors: one seat for Shiites, another for the tribe, a third for urbanites, a fourth for Islamists, and a fifth for liberals... The focus was on the social and ideological affiliation of ministers rather than their competence.

In reality, divisive discourse was gaining ground, both socially and confessionally. Why? The answer is simple: many factions found in government policies an easy path to implement their agendas. When racism, tribalism, or sectarianism take precedence, and when governments are lenient and sometimes compliant, MPs and ministers become reference points for serving people and granting them jobs, promotions, transfers, and benefits... based on their affiliations. Here, people find that the path of fanaticism yields success. The state and its institutions recede, leaving matters to a reality that begins by entrenching a discourse on “rights of components” and ends in clashes between these groups against each other, and between them and the state.

Reflect with me: How many MPs won elections without any national project, simply because they positioned themselves as urbanites against Bedouins? How many swept the polls because they positioned themselves as tribalists against urbanites? How many because they were Islamists against liberals? Recall the number of “parties” filled with insults and verbal abuse that occurred in election seminars, which even escalated to physical assaults. Trust me when I say that many felt the identity of “Kuwaiti” was too narrow for them, leading to the emergence of “Lion of the Year,” “Sword of the Shiites,” and declared and undeclared “princes” for various sects and schools of thought.

If only the issue had stopped there, for once unleashed, such discourse spreads like a cluster. Recall the student election lists at the university. They used to involve known blocs. The matter became tribal and regional, with election banners even appearing within universities between supporters and opponents within the same tribal branch... These are documented with audio and video.

Those who monitored donation campaigns in Kuwait, for example, for the Syrian opposition, and read the names of donating entities on large cars, might think it was part of a secondary internal election in the Fifth District. Those who monitored support campaigns for the former Syrian regime by other Kuwaiti groups might think the fate of some Kuwaitis was tied to the fate of an external regime... And those who remember the popular gatherings in Kuwait, and the violence, hatred, and open threats of slaughter and counter-threats of retaliation that accompanied them, know full well that these precursors lead to results that could have been dire had matters evolved further.

I have never been sectarian or racist in my life, nor will I ever be. I know only that I am Kuwaiti, so forgive me once again for my bluntness, even if it is harsh. We lived, and we will remain, as brothers—Sunni and Shia, urbanites and Bedouins. How many times have we heard, and you have heard, how the terminology in Kuwait changed, turning into “those who bear enmity (nawaasib), those who reject (rawafid), people with blue blood, and those from outside the regions”? Are these not the precipices that served as precursors to the bombings and casualties, including the “Al-Sadiq” crime? Did not certain entities glorify and eulogize officials responsible for killing Kuwaitis and for terrorist acts in Kuwait? Why do we hide behind our fingers or bury our heads in the ground like ostriches?

And as one of the miseries of time, backwardness knows no bounds. On the fringes of these beasts, in fact, flies flourished in cyberspace. No conscience, no oversight, no accountability, no ethics, no upbringing. Insults directed at the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his wives, and insults against the revered Ahl al-Bayt. Whoever does not safeguard the sacred symbols, how will they safeguard their brother in citizenship? Attacks on honor. Accusations of treason. Sectarian and sectarian vomiting... and perpetual projects of sedition.

Let whoever wishes say whatever they wish; every vessel exudes what is within it. If the policy of eradicating these deviations and “crimes” against national unity is commendable in this era (and it is certainly not the only one), it is enough for us that it preserved Kuwait, its people, and its society, after the grace of God Almighty. Remember how divisions were manifested in us on every issue, from Afghanistan to Iran, to Iraq, to Syria, then Lebanon, then Gaza. Imagine what the situation would have been had that phase continued following an explosion of war with Iran?... Just imagine.

Banning protests except with a permit. Banning gatherings and statements that undermine national unity. Banning sectarian discourse. Banning insults against others and their beliefs. Banning tribal and regional discourse. Any tweeter who undermines national unity will be held accountable. Observe how sectarian discourse has receded by more than ninety percent, and how the majority has disciplined itself and adhered to the official stance on the war and its events.