Sixty-two people are now reported to have been arrested in Kuwait following a demonstration on Wednesday in which protesters invaded the parliament building. 

The emir has called for "stricter measures to confront this chaotic behaviour" and the interior ministry says it will take "all necessary measures to combat any actions that might beset the country's security." Some kind of crackdown appears to be under way, though it's unlikely to turn as vicious as in Syria or Bahrain.

Although the Kuwaiti protesters have probably drawn inspiration from the uprisings in other parts of the Middle East, and although accountable government is their main goal, it we should be careful not to link these developments too closely to the Arab Spring. 

This week's events in Kuwait are just one twist in a prolonged tussle over the respective powers of parliament and the monarchy. In terms of the issues involved, it is remarkably similar to the constitutional battle in Britain that started in the 17th century and, over several hundred years, gradually whittled away the powers of the crown to almost nothing. 

Among the Gulf Arab states, Kuwait at present looks to have the best prospects for transforming peacefully into a modern European-style democracy. It has an elected parliament which, by Arab standards, is unusually lively and assertive – though not always in a progressive way (it was parliament, rather than the emir, that held out against granting votes to women). Political parties are still not formally allowed, but they exist after a fashion.

The most remarkable example of parliamentary assertiveness came in 2006 when the emir died and parliament (supported by sections of the ruling family and the Kuwaiti press) refused to accept the ailing crown prince, 76-year-old Sheikh Sa'ad, who had been proclaimed as his successor.

Sheikh Sa'ad's medical condition (he was said to have been suffering from Alzheimer's disease) meant that he could not recite the oath of office as required by the constitution and, after a good deal of behind-the scenes wrangling, a unanimous vote in parliament declared him unfit for office. 

In terms of Arab politics this was an unprecedented move: for the first time, an elected parliament had peacefully ousted a monarch. It marked a significant step on the road towards parliamentary supremacy, though the royal family also managed to save some face. A few minutes after MPs voted, a letter arrived at the parliament building announcing Shaikh Sa’ad’s abdication – thus blurring the question of whether he had jumped or been pushed. 

There are also frequent skirmishes between parliament and monarchy over control of the government, with MPs constantly seeking to question ministers and hold them accountable – particularly over allegations of corruption.

It only takes a quick glance at the list of government ministers to see the root of the problem. Eleven of the 27 ministers are called Sabah – the name of the ruling family. In fact, members of the ruling family hold all the most important positions (prime minister, economy, defence, interior and foreign affairs) and it would be stretching credibility to suggest that they have been appointed on merit rather than family connections.

Parliament has no real control over the actions of ministers and, consequently, is restricted in what it can do to influence government policy (an article in Foreign Policy by Kristin Smith Diwan discusses these problems in detail). The main weapon that MPs can use is to summon ministers for questioning – if parliament as a whole agrees to that.

Most recently, opposition MPs have been seeking to question the prime minister, Sheikh Nasser al-Mohammad al-Sabah, in connection with alleged corruption but so far their efforts have been blocked – hence the demonstration on Wednesday.

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 19 November 2011.