Appointing the Upper House of the Omani Parliament: Cui Bono?

Oman is one of the few countries with a fully appointed upper house, the Majlis Al-Dawla (Council of State), which was established in 1997. This article examines the contentious issue of the Sultan’s power to appoint members of the Majlis Al-Dawla , a system that has been criticized for its lack of input legitimacy due to its failure to be rooted in suffrage. In other words, the Majlis Al-Dawla is subordinate to the Omani executive and, in turn, it serves to constrain the elected house, the Majlis Al-Shura (Consultative Council). However, this article argues that the Omani system allows the Sultan to appoint members who are not represented in the elected house, such as women, and it enables him to include experts as a means of improving the quality of parliamentary debate, promoting output legitimacy. The article also demonstrates how appointed members sometimes support the elected house and challenge the executive, as seen in the example of the upper house’s proposed Constitutional Court Law. This research employs a combination of legal, analytical, historical, practical, and comparative methodologies, covering the eras of Sultan Qaboos and Sultan Haitham, from 2011 to 2023. Ultimately, it concludes that the practice of appointing all members of the Omani upper house is acceptable in Oman, as its positive aspects outweigh its negative aspects. However, reforms should be implemented to minimize the downsides of this system, such as the creation of an appointments commission and a reduction in its size so that its members’ count does not exceed half that of the Majlis Al-Shura .