I would always respond to them as follows. Kuwaitis as a people are by far the most open-minded in the Gulf, while the government is stagnant. The UAE, on the other hand, has a very active and progressive government trying to push the country into the big leagues, while the people are probably the most conservative (in line with Qatar but certainly way more conservative then Saudis.)
In truth there is no such thing as one being better than the other, there are various characteristics that distinguish them from one another, and most importantly have lead to these conflicting outcomings both socially and politically. First off, Kuwait's history is much older than that of the Emirates. Kuwait was able to develop sooner and at a faster pace. Kuwait had its heyday as the Gulf poster child for success from the '60s until the Iraqi invasion in 1990. (Most people would agree that after that Kuwait just continued to go downhill.) Regardless of the development, however, Kuwait's history is just totally different from that of the Emirates or even Qatar and the rest of the Gulf countries.
Kuwait has a democratic past.
When Kuwait was established as a state, the mercantile elite voted for the Sabah family to become the rulers. This was due to their status as the poorest family amongst the merchant elite. This was the decision of the merchants that they become the rulers, initially only overseeing the security of the city. The real power, politically, socially and economically was in the hands of the merchants. Once the British arrived this changed. The Brits did not understand the complexities of such a complex society. They went directly to the "rulers" to exploit the region's oil. Furthermore, they would pay large sums to the ruling family to have control over the lucrative oil fields, should they be found. (Don't forget in the early 20’s it was still just speculation.) This is when the Sabah family started to prosper and gain power. This is where the power shift takes place between the merchants and the royal family.
The merchants had to be essentially "bought out" of politics and then bribed for financial stability and personal gain. This is one of the reasons why today we see merchant families like al-Shaya owning monopolies in many industries throughout the Gulf. These are some of those original buyouts for power. Kuwait was established as a trading post between Iraq and India, similar to the other Gulf states. In Kuwait's case, the Bedouins quickly gave up their nomadic ways and quickly "settled" as they are called in Arabic today, the Hathar or literally civilized, in juxtaposition to the nomads or Bedouin (Bedou in Arabic) that lived outside the boundaries of the city-state. Kuwait is a mix of three various heritages, the Nomadic Bedouin mainly from the heartland of modern-day Saudi Arabia, known as the Najd, Iran, and Iraq. The Emirates is also made up of three various heritages; those same originally Nomadic Bedouin, Iranians, Yemeni's and even Omani's. Another major difference between Kuwait and the UAE is that Kuwait is one nation-state with one history, albeit a variety of internal cultures. The Emirates, on the other hand, is several different city-states that decided in the '70s to become a federation.
Originally known to the British as the Trucial States; Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khayma, Sharjah, and Umm al Quwain all became one united state in 1971. Whereas Kuwait was established democratically through a general consensus of the ruling merchant elites, with the current royal family only receiving real power with the coming of oil and the British, the UAE rulers came to power in a totally different way. Opposed to Kuwait that was already a complete city in and of itself, almost the entirety of the UAE was a rural desert. While it differed from emirate to emirate, the vast majority were either fully or semi-nomadic. One notable distinction would be Dubai that the vast majority were Iranian and to a lesser extent Indian merchants that the ruling family of Dubai, the Al Maktoum's, coerced to cross the Gulf and do their business from Dubai rather than the southern coast of Iran.
So while Kuwaitis were settled almost from their inception, the Emiratis were not and they required a powerful ruler, cue Sheikh Zayed, who had the vision to take his compatriots, literally out of the desert and onto the world stage. This was a possibility for a single man to do, and now for his descendants to carry on, because there is no tradition of democracy, and autocracy is not abnormal or frowned upon. On the contrary, a benevolent autocrat in this case not only became a very rich businessman himself but was furthermore able to fill the pockets of his subjects and citizens. Sheikh Zayed was a very progressive leader that was able to revolutionize his country through not only oil wealth. It is the investments of those petrodollar profits that has seen the great success of the 'Emirati corporation.'
In conclusion and direct response to the initial question raised above, I would say that Kuwaiti's are the most open-minded national group in the Gulf due to their modernization and entry onto the world stage at an earlier time, their democratic heritage both in regards to the voting of the Sabah family into power by the merchant elites but also the neighborhood Diwaniya which is the root of the Kuwaiti consensual political system and most importantly Kuwaiti's cosmopolitan past and tradition.
Dubai is considered today to be the most cosmopolitan city in the world with 83% foreign-born residents. Mirroring Farah Nakib's sentiment in her book, Kuwait Transformed, Cosmopolitanism should not be understood as a sophisticated city, but rather a hybrid city fusing together different groups of people. In Kuwait's case, this was Arabs from modern-day Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, India and East Africa, all living and working together and ultimately identifying themselves with the then tiny city-state of Kuwait-town. While the Emirati government has done everything possible to modernized the nation and bring them onto the world stage, the one million citizens are still finding their way between tradition and modernity.
No comments:
Post a Comment