While intended to keep an eye on the progress of Yemen’s democratic transition, the National Dialogue Conference seems to have stalled the general operation of the country.
During such social events as weddings and funerals, people focused their conversations so exclusively on the dialogue that any other subject was seen as useless and out of context. Even those who refused to take part in the dialogue are also occupied with talking about its uselessness and absurdity. According to Southern Movement leaders like Ali Salim Al-Beidh, it is a conspiracy fomented against the youth revolution and a way to circumvent the issue of the south.
At first glance, the dialogue seems useful. The concerned parties were preoccupied by it, leading them to lay down their weapons. It also seems like the dialogue will be comprehensive and will attract wide local attention. The truth, however, is a different matter.
The excessive focus on the dialogue has brought everything else to a halt. Other efforts that are probably more important for Yemen from the perspective of Yemeni citizens have gone down the drain. Additionally, the dialogue spared the government from having to answer tough questions.
Instead, the government threw important tasks onto the dialogue table, especially since governmental officials were busy preparing for the dialogue as representatives of political parties instead of the government, as was the case with parliament.
More than 30 MPs of different political parties are taking part in the national dialogue that requires, according to its bylaw, full devotion to its agenda, something that makes the dialogue mission impossible to achieve given the specified timeframe. The mission is supposed to be realized within six months, half of which has already passed.
Clearly, none of them could balance attending parliamentary sessions and the dialogue. Thus, parliament paid the price with the absence of more than 30 MPs, 10 percent of parliament.
This issue surfaced starkly at the beginning of the conference when the speaker of parliament and others were part of the national dialogue, which impeded parliamentary sessions from being held on time. Then, the speaker of parliament withdrew from the national dialogue to exercise his duty within the parliament again.
The coalition of Joint Meeting Parties considered, after boycotting sessions due to its dispute with the General People’s Congress, that the decisions made by parliament during its boycott of the sessions were illegitimate. The dispute developed into a political crisis that was only solved months later, following direct intervention by the president.
The paralysis of the National Dialogue Conference in Yemen not only affected parliament, but its repercussions also reached the executive authority. Many prominent ministers in the current transitional cabinet are also members of the national dialogue, including the ministers of foreign affairs, industry, tourism and communications. Consequently, their ministries and institutions are suffering greatly in their absence, especially given that the Yemeni government is bureaucratic and lacks the rules of organizational work and administrative delegation of authority to facilitate tasks. The important matters are handled by the minister or president, so in the absence of the top figure, institutions become paralyzed.
It is hard to imagine that the minister of foreign affairs would be preoccupied with the national dialogue in a country experiencing what would appear to be international tutelage.
The international community is playing a more essential role than any other internal party. Moreover, Yemen’s transitional phase is taking place through an international initiative — the Gulf Initiative — drafted by international diplomats who are currently monitoring the progress of this phase in Yemen.
