In April 2003, my friend and I went to the Student Activity Center at Qatar University to participate in the referendum for the permanent Qatari constitution. My friend had doubts about several provisions, but I didn’t understand much of what he was discussing. I was influenced by the media campaign that led 96.6% of voters to support the constitution, while only a tiny minority of 1.5% opposed it.
The state, government and people welcomed this step, which many saw as contributing to placing Qatar among developed nations. It was considered a move towards building a state governed by law and institutions, aligning with the country’s plans in various aspects, including political, economic, social, cultural, and intellectual realms, and responding to the era’s demands.
As His Highness Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the Emir of the country at the time, said in the first meeting of the Permanent Constitution Preparation Committee on July 13, 1999: “Nations that have armed themselves with knowledge, fortified themselves with education, and dedicated themselves to democracy and respecting human rights, are the ones that have faced challenges and overcome difficulties.” His Highness sees the constitution as a means “for progress and advancement,” and even “cements the sense of belonging to this nation.”
Just over a year and two months after the referendum, on June 8, 2004, the permanent constitution of the State of Qatar was issued. The news of the constitution’s issuance dominated the front pages of all Qatari newspapers, which were filled with congratulations and celebrations and lacked articles. Some newspapers did reference fundamental principles directed at the state’s policy, explaining how the constitution would organize its powers, clarify the essential pillars of society and people’s participation, and establish the basis for the rights and freedoms of the citizens.
Here, I realized the importance of this small document, smaller than the palm of a hand, with seventy-five pages, widely published, and dastor, does not seem to be in Arabic. The internet and abundant information available today were not the same back then. Fortunately, I found someone in a forum who called himself Al-Hayim, saying the word’s origin is Persian.
Al-Hayim’s statement coincides with what Advisor Dr Mohamed Sweilem states in his book Constitutional Judiciary (2021): that the word dastor originates from the ancient Pahlavi language. It consists of two parts: Dast, meaning hand, and Wor, meaning owner, together implying the owner of power. Over time, its meaning evolved to signify the rule or foundation.
In her book General Theory in Constitutional Law (2015), Hanan Al-Qaisi mentions that the word dastor entered the Arabic language through the Turks. It was originally used to refer to the notebook in which the king’s laws were compiled and to refer to the register of soldiers.
The English word Constitution, which has Latin origins, is also a compound term, as mentioned in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Generally, it means “agreement on the foundations.” Hence, the Persian, Arabic, and Western languages agree that this document serves as a foundation and basis.
In an interview with Dr Hassan Al-Sayed, a professor of public law at Qatar University, he explained, “The constitution is the legislative framework that authorizes the state and its authorities to perform their functions according to its provisions.”
Al-Sayed added, “From the Latin origin of the word, it can be understood that the constitution is the foundation upon which the state’s authorities base their exercise of powers and their adherence to their limits, and it is the rule upon which all other subordinate legislations are built or according to which they are formed.”
History of the Constitutionalism
After the constitution was issued in 2004 and I understood its linguistic and historical aspects, I visited the Qatari Books House, a building from the sixties. I thank God it was considered a heritage site and was not demolished. It has recently been rehabilitated, along with the surrounding area, in a sustainable manner that respects their cultural and heritage significance. Over the recent years, the dust had infiltrated its shelves and books, and its walls had begun to crack.
I entered the house, which still relied on the Dewey Decimal Classification for classifying books, accessing them, and determining their numbers as it had not yet adopted a digital system. An old book, In the Constitution (1964), by Munther Al-Shawi Al-Obaidi, a constitutional law professor, caught my eye. He elucidated many elements about the importance of “constitutionalism” from legislative, legal, and rights perspectives.
In the first chapter, Al-Obaidi focuses on the supremacy of the constitution, considering it “the origin of all public authorities in the state,” meaning it determines the state’s priorities and legitimacy. He views the constitution as the founding act within the state and the source of all powers, including those of the rulers, as it defines the mechanisms by which they assume control of the country, their qualities, and the conditions under which they exercise their powers.
Al-Sayed defined the constitution as “a set of principles and legal rules that regulate governance in a state and how power is circulated within it. It clarifies whether the state is federal or unitary, emphasizes the executive, legislative, and judicial public authorities and their competencies and interrelations, guarantees public rights and freedoms, and outlines the social and economic philosophy adopted by the state.”
After years, I travelled to the UK to study Media and Communications. Interestingly, before I started, I was required to take some foundational courses, one of which was unexpectedly mandatory—Introduction to Constitutional Principles. This module was required even though the UK does not have a written constitution and despite my major not being related to law.
This module comprised some definitions, procedures, and Britain’s legal and judicial system. It also explains how legislation and laws are issued between the British House of Commons and the House of Lords, and most importantly, its constitutional system and the sources of legislation it relies on.
It became clear to me that some countries – for historical reasons – do not have a codified written constitution, as in Britain. However, it is not entirely the case that they lack constitutional rules; instead, it appeared to me that many of the constitutional rules and principles included in the written constitutions of many countries today have their historical basis in the practices and customs of British constitutional law.
Many believe that the origins of most contemporary constitutions can be traced back to the Magna Carta, which was presented by English barons, bishops, and major feudal landowners to King John Lackland in 1215. They aimed to compel him to respect their rights and curtail his powers and influence to achieve peace and prevent the outbreak of a civil war.
Britain has a complex framework of rules and laws that span various eras and foundational legislation, such as the previously mentioned Magna Carta, the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689), the Act of Settlement (1701), and the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949.
In addition, there are established constitutional conventions, such as the necessity for the Queen to approve all legislation passed by Parliament, the requirement for the Queen to consult the Prime Minister before dissolving Parliament, and the reliance on the majority leader for government formation.
These historical precedents and Britain’s conservative nature likely contribute to its decision against adopting a codified constitution.
Research into the origins of codified constitutions reveals that they first emerged around 250 years ago, following the American colonies’ independence from Britain. At that time, these colonies transformed into independent states, each crafting legislation to govern their administration and governance structures. With the unification of these states, the first enduring codified constitution was established, which still exists today. This practice of constitution codification soon spread globally, making it exceedingly rare today to find a country without a codified constitution.
Academic politician Woodrow Wilson states that the Magna Carta was instrumental in establishing modern democratic constitutional systems that emerged in the 18th century, coinciding with the American and French revolutions, which directed the entire world towards the idea of the social contract and the creation of written constitutions.
Subsequently, European countries successively followed the same path over the subsequent centuries. As for the Arab countries, the issuance of their constitutions was linked to the conditions of colonization or the post-independence period. Tunisia, in 1861, was the first Arab country to establish a written constitution.
Despite the limited number of articles in the U.S. Constitution, it has undergone 27 amendments over the past two centuries, according to the White House website. These amendments were made in response to the events and circumstances that the country has experienced.
This can be observed in France, where the system of government has shifted from a monarchy to a republic, back to a monarchy, and then back to a republic again. This led to the abolition of some constitutions and the establishment of others throughout its history, from the Revolution in 1789 to its current constitution in 1958.
Therefore, the evolution of the constitution is closely linked to the social, economic, and political developments the country experiences. As Al-Sayed said, “The constitution, like any legislation, is initially believed by its creators to go through events, circumstances, or situations that necessitate revisiting or amending some of its articles to suit developments. It explicitly states within its core the methods and procedures for amending its articles.”
An Overview of the 2004 Constitution
The Qatari Constitution, issued in 2004, consists of five sections comprising 150 articles. The first section, concerning the state and the foundations of governance, describes Qatar as an independent sovereign Arab state. It declares Islam as one of the sources of legislation, specifies its language and capital, and outlines its foreign policy regarding treaties, covenants, and peacekeeping. This section also clarifies the governance system and its procedures in 17 articles.
The second chapter contains 16 articles on society’s essential components, outlining its principles and pillars and the state’s role in ensuring security and stability. It enhances nationalism, religion, ethics, and integrity, prioritizing the family and the strength of its members’ relationships, considering it the cornerstone of society. It also focuses on protecting the youth from corruption and exploitation, ensuring they are healthy, aware, and capable.
The second chapter outlines the state’s commitment to providing necessary health, education, and culture for its citizens, protecting private property, and ensuring social justice. It also details the state’s role in fostering balanced development cooperation between the public and private sectors. Finally, it clarifies the state’s role in preserving its natural resources, ensuring they are utilized efficiently and sustainably.
The articles of the constitution in the third chapter, concerning general rights and duties, affirm that everyone is equal before the law regardless of gender, origin, language, or religion. Personal freedom is protected, privacy is respected, and only legal rulings determine who may be detained or have their freedom of residence or movement restricted. Torture or degrading treatment is prohibited. Every individual residing in or settling in Qatar must respect the constitution, comply with the laws, and adhere to public order and morals.
In addition, the third chapter clarifies that a citizen cannot be expelled or prevented from returning to the country. It affirms that an accused is innocent until proven guilty and that there can be no crime or punishment without legislation, as all rights are protected. The Constitution guarantees the freedom to form associations, express opinions, and practice religion, all within the bounds of the law. It prohibits the public confiscation of property and considers public service a national duty. This chapter, which consists of 25 articles, concludes by emphasizing the prohibition of extraditing political refugees if their situation conforms to the conditions for granting asylum.
The fourth chapter is comprehensive, containing 82 articles divided into five sections. The first deals with general provisions, stating that the people are the source of power and that the system of governance is based on the separation of powers. The Shura Council holds legislative power, the Emir, along with the Council of Ministers, holds executive power, and the courts hold judicial power, issuing their rulings in the name of the Emir.
The second section specifies the role of the Emir, as the constitution grants him extensive powers in managing state affairs and decision-making. He is the head of state and the supreme commander of the armed forces, representing the state domestically and internationally. His powers include formulating the state’s general policy, ratifying laws, appointing civil and military officials, establishing ministries, and concluding treaties and agreements that become law after ratification.
The Emir also has the right to declare customary law and can issue decrees with the force of law under exceptional circumstances. Regarding war, he has the authority to order defence; however, the Constitution prohibits initiating attacks. Additionally, he appoints or dismisses the Prime Minister and ministers and decides on issues that require a referendum among citizens.
The third section outlines the responsibilities of the legislative authority represented by the Shura Council, including how legislation is enacted. The Council approves the state’s general budget and oversees the executive authority. It consists of 45 members, 30 of whom are elected, while the Emir appoints the remaining. The voting process occurs within electoral districts determined by a decree.
The third section also specifies the qualifications required for members of the Shura Council, including Qatari nationality, age, proficiency in the Arabic language, consideration for the nation’s interest, and a clean record free from dishonour or dishonesty. It also sets the term of the council at four years.
Members can propose legislation and laws, approve them, and present the state’s general budget before the start of the fiscal year. The constitution in the third section indicates that the Emir has the authority to ratify or reject proposed laws and has the power to dissolve the Shura Council when the country’s supreme interests require it.
Section four relates to the responsibilities of the executive authority, stating that ministers must be of Qatari origin and outlining the procedures for their appointment and commencement of duties. The Council of Ministers possesses broad powers as the supreme executive body, including managing internal and external affairs and overseeing the implementation of laws and decrees. The Council can propose legislative projects and set the government’s general policy. Each minister is held accountable for their performance and the way they exercise their powers.
The final section of the fourth chapter includes articles related to the judiciary’s jurisdiction. It begins by stating that the sovereignty of law is the foundation of governance in the state and that the judiciary and judges’ independence, honour, integrity, fairness, and impartiality ensure rights and freedoms. They are subject only to the law, and no one interferes in their affairs. The section clarifies that most court sessions are public to ensure transparency, except those related to public order and morals.
The fifth section also states that the judiciary has a council responsible for organizing the courts and their levels and the mechanism for resolving disputes, except for military ones. It is also responsible for the performance and dismissal of judges. It considers the public prosecution to represent society, supervising the application of criminal laws and judicial control affairs. Finally, it specifies that it must appoint a judicial body tasked with resolving disputes related to the constitutionality of laws and regulations and determining the appeals procedures and the consequent effects.
Finally, the fifth chapter is the last of the constitution, containing final provisions spread across ten articles that specify when the constitution becomes effective and how it can be amended. It clarifies that provisions related to the governance of the state, public rights and freedoms, and the powers of the Emir cannot be amended. The Constitution can only be amended ten years after it comes into effect. Additionally, it guarantees immunity to the members of the Shura Council and repeals the provisional basic system of 1972.
Constitutions in the Digital Age
A thought struck me about our current era, in which every person on this earth faces screens that do not abide by laws or regulations, placing a significant burden on authorities to keep up with their evolution. As a result, constitutions worldwide have become mere ink on paper, failing to meet the demands of the challenges of digital reality.
However, when I read the articles of the Qatari constitution, I found that it has established general principles and foundations that emphasize the state’s duty to create an environment that supports creativity, innovation, and scientific research, which can only be achieved through security, stability, freedom, and equality. Thus, in this regard, the Constitution transcends any specific era.
Al-Sayed explains that the state must ensure that all the principles enshrined in the constitution are not merely confined to paper. If “the authorities do not believe in them, officials do not respect them, and they are not entrenched in society, then the constitutional texts have no value if they are neglected in reality or violated by some laws and regulations.”
“The first step to elevate the constitutional principles is through understanding them, believing in their importance, and spreading legal awareness and culture to help achieve their purpose,” Al-Sayed added.
And what my friend was cautious about on the day of the referendum is merely an opinion that the constitution respects and grants him the right to consider.
