Promoting liberty, destroying liberty?

By Doug Bandow

KUWAIT CITY, Kuwait ― International support for democracy is widespread. Yet democracy sometimes has only a tenuous relationship with liberty.

In fact, unconstrained democracy can threaten a free society. This tension is evident in Kuwait.

Kuwaitis have established the Gulf’s freest country: the elected parliament has real power and the independent media asks embarrassing questions. Non-Muslims are free to practice their faiths.

However, in December Kuwait held its second National Assembly election. The Emir unilaterally changed the voting system, triggering protests and a campaign boycott. A broad coalition ranging from liberal to Islamist is pressuring the government to change course ― and eventually create an elected prime minister.

Khaledal-Fadhala, a student organizer, told the Financial Times: “The youth want change. Whoever will bring that change, the youth want. I don’t care if they’re Islamists, Muslim Brotherhood, Shia … as long as they win in a democratic election.”

Better to win in a democratic election than not. However, winning a popular vote is no guarantee of support for freedom.

For instance, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak was an authoritarian who found favor in Washington because he generally backed U.S. policy. Unfortunately, this association did wonders ― all bad ― for America’s reputation in the Middle East.

Mohamed Morsi, a member of the Islamic Brotherhood, was elected president after Mubarak’s fall. Morsi has claimed the right to exercise near dictatorial powers. The proposed constitution enshrines authority rather than liberty. Violent attacks on Coptic Christians have risen. Egypt is more democratic than before, but could end up less free.

Some Kuwaitis fear they might be traveling down the same road. Kuwait is not Egypt: The former is far more democratic, free, and prosperous. Kuwait’s political community is smaller and more united. Most Kuwaitis realize that they have a huge stake in social stability.

Indeed, even opposition activists emphasize their support for Kuwait’s Emir. For instance, Musallam Al-Barrak, a long-time parliamentarian calling for sustained protests, told me when I visited in December that protestors want an elected government, but “that never means we are against the government or the ruling system.” Yet in April al-Barrak was sentenced to five years in prison for criticizing the Emir, demonstrating the limits of Kuwait’s democracy.

However, an elected rather than appointed government would sharply curtail the Emir’s powers. And, ironically, that might not be good for liberty in other ways.

The parliament elected in 2009 fell into disrepute, leading to elections in February 2012, which I also observed. The opposition took two-thirds of the seats. And a majority of MPs were Islamists.

In general these men were moderate in temperament and fully integrated into Kuwaiti society. Nor did they bear Americans any ill-will. For instance, I interviewed Dr. Naser al-Sane, a former MP active with the international Islamic Brotherhood who had met with U.S. congressmen and whose son attended college in America.

Nevertheless, liberty is not high on their list. A religious block quickly formed, leading to talk about imposing a dress code on women. The group also called for making Sharia the source of all law, executing blasphemers, and closing down Christian churches. The Emir said “no” to all three measures ― for instance, the government explained that the constitution protected freedom of religion.

This is a society in which liberal Kuwaitis choose Western dress and discuss which brand of alcohol they prefer. One younger Kuwaiti complained to me that “I am not sure that monarchy is the best system for Kuwait.”

Indeed, the driving force behind protests which are challenging Kuwait’s government is the young. Al-Barrak and other long-serving MPs provide the public face of opposition. But al-Barrak called the youth “the heart of the movement.”

My friend Shafeeq Ghabra, a political scientist at Kuwait University, estimated that 60 percent of Kuwait’s population is under 26. And everyone I talked with said young people were spontaneously pressing for change out of personal conviction. “The youth are saying that this is their movement,” explained Ghabra.

That’s exciting. But it brings to mind Khaledal-Fadhala’s comment. Is all that matters that officials are democratically elected? What if those elected will use their authority to limit the liberty of those doing the electing?

As yet there is no Kuwaiti Mohamed Morsi in the wings, ready to exercise dictatorial authority in the name of democracy. Nevertheless, seemingly reasonable people already said they were ready to kill blasphemers and destroy churches. Is this the world young Kuwaitis hope to construct?

The ultimate objective in Kuwait should be to create a free society. Democracy is an important means to that end. But it is important to limit state power before deciding who gets to exercise that authority.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan.