 It was the worst of times. Instability and war were rampant across the Arabian Peninsula. First, it was the Ottoman-Persian War in 1730 that lasted for five years, then followed by a series of major clashes resulting in the rise of the first Saudi state, the Emirate of Deriyya, and with it began a strategy of amalgamation of smaller emirates around the Arabian Peninsula. One such target for the Al-Sarud was the Benu Khalid Emirate located along the eastern coast of the Arabian Gulf. By the late 1740s, the Benu Khalid, feeling threatened, instigated a campaign of attacks on the Saudi Emirate. These skirmishes lasted for over 40 years and would end with the collapse of the Benu Khalid Emirate. One people's instability was another people's opportunity. For the small fishing village of Kuwait, even though falling under the jurisdiction of the Benu Khalid Emirate, being on the far geographic periphery of the many devastating wars and complicated political jockeying that characterized the peninsula, it was the best of times, a boom if you may. European traders seeking a safe and secure base to conduct their business found that Kuwait and its port were ideally located for all their logistical needs, and to make matters even more exciting for the Kuwaitis, a wonderful consequence to the new found European trade presence was a substantial appetite for Arabian pearls. Such new and overwhelming demand took an industry that was barely scrapping by to one that would become the leading Kuwaiti export over the next 150 years. These two realities of instability and prosperity came crashing into each other in 1756, when the Emir of the Benu Khalid Emirate, A'rayir ibn Jain ibn Sa'dun, decided to seed power in Kuwait and focus on protecting the heart of his Emirate, the Ihsa region. Such a withdrawal would lead to a vacuum of governance in Kuwait. To preempt any chaos or instability taking shape, the Kuwaiti families and clans gathered to discuss the future political structure for the now-prospering town. Times were so good that it would be a shame to have to refocus their efforts on having to deal with such political uncertainty. There was a clan that had emigrated to Kuwait a mere 50 years earlier, numbering over 2,000. This group included the Al-Sabahs, a respected and trustworthy tribe. They had shown loyalty to all whom had interacted with them, from the Emir of Benu Khalid to the various pearl diving or merchant families of Kuwait. All vouched for the Al-Sabah tribe's moral and ethical standing. A proposal was put forth by some of the attending families. Brethren, we all have our own interests to look after. We are neither governors nor emirs. We know nothing of such a responsibility. Our expertise is to conduct business via trade and the construction of ships. Let us ask the Al-Sabahs if they would agree to govern the town, to be judge and jury, to protect our families when our men are away at sea for the many months during our expeditions. We all have consensus on their high character. They are a God-fearing people and we cannot hope for a better choice. I say, let us vote on it. And the vote took place unanimously. It was the will of the people to select the Al-Sabah tribe as the rulers of Kuwait. And Sabah I of Ben-Jaber became the first Emir of Kuwait in that same year, 1756, almost three centuries later, till this very day, the Al-Sabahs still rule Kuwait. Okay, okay, you're going to say that this doesn't make Kuwait an actual democracy. First, because a vote only happened once over 250 years ago. And second, because the vote selected a family as the ruling authority, as opposed to an individual leader based on his or her own character, merits, or abilities. Let me tackle this last point, as the first, time doesn't really impact our debate. The Kuwaiti people selected a clan as opposed to an individual. How is that any different? Nowhere in its definition does democracy mandate a selection of an individual through a vote or choice by the people as the leader of a nation. The same thing happens everywhere in the supposed true democracies of the world. Many nations vote in a proportional representation system. So they vote for a political party and not an individual. Once a party wins or negotiates a majority, then they appoint a leader for their nation. Some of these democratic nations include Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, and Sweden. Other similar situations also present themselves like in the year 2022, when in the United Kingdom, the English people who in their previous elections had voted for Boris Johnson of the Conservatives Party to be Prime Minister. Upon his resignation in September of 2022, the Conservatives Party selected Liz Truss as his replacement. The English people didn't vote for Liz Truss, and under two months later, Truss would resign due to her poor performance. Again, a month later after that, another replacement, Rishi Sunak, would take over as Prime Minister of England, three leaders of the democratic nation, two of whom were never chosen by the people. How is a Sabah tribe any different to the British Conservatives Party, or any major party that has been dominant at the voting booths in their respective democratic nations around the world? Kuwait's system of rule is pretty much a monarchic system, where succession of leadership remains within one family. But hold on, how can anyone be judgmental about Kuwait's claim for being democratically first when we also bear witness to leaders of democratic nations achieving their positions due to political nepotism? Isn't that more or less the same as monarchic succession? How is what's happening in today's Western political landscape reflective of true democracy, a rule by the people, and that the people have spoken? Looking from one democratic country to another reveals that politics is reserved for the very few and elite. In Canada, one Prime Minister Trudeau hands another Prime Minister Trudeau the chalice to drink the wisdoms and knowledge to lead a nation. In India, we have Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi, who wrote the coattails of his mother's unfortunate and sad assassination to become Prime Minister himself. In Greece, it gets even worse. Three generations of Papandreos have stood as Prime Minister of their nation, Georgios, Andreas, and George. Is it the quality and fabric of the individual or the undeniable value of the family name and genetics? No stronger proof of this exists than in the United States, where family dynasties seem to be the norm when it comes to those positioned as Prime candidates for being president. The Kennedys don't need to elaborate more on them. The Kennedys, again, not much needed to be said there. Well, except that we were lucky to avoid that one. And the cream of the crop, the one that represents the whole truth and nothing but the truth that intellect, charisma, and leadership qualities are so unnecessary to become the president of the leader of the free world when you have one famous middle initial. And that's double you. We can argue left, right, and center about who's first of today's nations in terms of democracy. The truth is that Kuwait is an ongoing democracy that has evolved over the many centuries from a vote to designate a ruling family with no term limit. Let's call them the El Sabah political party to now a constitutional monarchic democracy that is more effective than all the democracies across the world. But that is a story for our next episode. So till then.