In either case the ultimate victor seems to be the monarchy, which continues to portray itself as an indispensable mediator over a fractious body politic. “Without the monarchy,” a ministry official asserted, “Bahrain would go the way of Iraq and Lebanon.” Echoing this assertion, a member of the king’s appointed consultative council, which has effective veto authority over the Parliament, described his institution as a “buffer” to prevent the country from being “hijacked by religious extremists.”
The Daily Star :: Fred Wehry
If they were truly looking for a “buffer” they would have not meddled in the elections to ensure the liberals’ defeat.
I think this red herring is so putrefied that it’s stink has become legendary. If people still believe in this, then maybe they also believe in flying pigs and pink elephants…
Comments
Mahmood,
I hate to say this, but in a weird way, this minister might actually be right. I certainly would like to see a fully functional constitutionally limited Republic, (aka a “democracy” if we arent being too technical), but think about it for a second:
Here we have a country, where (for the most part), eddicts from the King are the law of the land. We also have sectarian tensions, questioning of loyalties based on sect, hard core Islamists and hard core liberals.
Now, unless we have the political infrastructure to handle such varying ideologies, (aka, solid constitution, solid independance of judiciary, solid ban on religion from political life), then how else are people of such wide and varying political opinions to co-exist in the first place? One way: A parent. In politics, an all powerful King, to keep things in check. (Unfortunately).
As I said before – I am no fan of monarchies. But I say this to make a point: I do not think we have the necessary political infrastructure… the institutions… the basic templates in place today, to create a fully independant secular Republic, should the King of Bahrain suddenly sign off tomorrow to become a tatoo artist.
I see this struggle in a similar way an adolescent struggles with his parents to give him more freedom. Unless he is ready to deal with it, and knows how, he will fail miserably. But give it to him too late, and you end up with a mama’s boy. The question is, where on this axis does Bahrain stand? Teenager? Mid-20s? Baby? Grannie? My guess is that we are probably just going puberty. Not entirely ready yet for a sudden hand off, but old enough to know what direction to walk in at least. So when the King looks at his fellow subjects, he sees plenty of raging Islamists, sunni sect this, shia sect that – just, babies really, every month coming to him screaming “Mr! Mr! Mr sunni/shia called me a poopoo head! waaa! waaaaaaa!”
————————————
Here’s what I think should happen: As liberals, continue to build up the cultural grounds for change. Simply, we just need to preach! I see the “la sunni wala shia” bracelet fevor as a broad cultural improvement for example – families can easily talk about it over dinner. Kids on a school playground understand it. Adults are encouraged by it and in turn rub it off on their kids. Then one day 30 years from now when someone tries to play the sect card, there will be no grounds for that type of weed to grow in.
Now if the King want to be king, and the prince want to be prince, let them – in time, as the society matures culturally, – as the society starts to see women as equals, as the society begins to accept religion as between yourself and you god, its garuanteed that similar values will rub off on the politics. And then one day, someone will ask, “wait a minute… just what IS the use of a King anyway?…” Can the King then say “Oh, but you sectarian bent kiddos cant do without me”? No. By that time, he’ll take one look up, and see he is talking to a room full of adults. 🙂
-Ibn
The problem is Ibn, people have been making the exact same excuses for a couple of hundred years. If we don’t make a change now, and start being treated as responsible adults, there will never come a point of handover.
Further, the argument you make of having the monarchy as a stabilising force would have worked if the monarchy treated the citizens with respect. It is the monarchy – as evidenced very recently in the elections – who have manufactured this sectarian situation, hence, this is another point that proves the incorrectness of your assumptions beyond a shadow of a doubt!
Very sad really. I used to adopt the very beliefs you hold; the recent elections and what has happened since then have all but shattered that belief.
Ibn
The Bahraini people are mature enough (or at least more mature than the government itself) to get a fully functional constitutional state. Based on the recent election and Bandargate scandal,I don’t think the king or his uncle are even qualified to present themselves as those that can protect Bahrain from Islamic extremism or sectarian tensions.
Just to make the point absolutely clear.
Ibn said:
The growing trend at the time of the 1973 parliament was progressive, secular, anti-sectarian and pro-women. How did the monarchy respond to this? Dissolve parliament, impose de facto martial law, arrest, torture and exile the movements leaders.
They also responded by inviting and supporting sectarianist leaders to play a role in Bahraini politics, to weaken the “threat” posed by the anti-sectarianist progressive opposition. The monarchy is in many ways responsible for the sharp sectarian bent in Bahrain today, so there is no reason at all to trust that it will defend the country from sectarianism (and Bandargate reiterates that point).
Finally, no one is asking for the removal of the monarchy outright. All that is being asked is for its powers to be limited. However everday it looks more and more like the King is daring the people to engage in a showdown.
Small correction, women were disenfranchised in the ’73 constitution, so I wouldn’t say that parliament was pro women, especially that quite a few of that parliament were the very same people who wrote that constitution.
Actually, women were not disenfranchised in the ’73 Constitution (it clearly states “universal suffrage”, article 43). If I’m not mistaken, it was the government which issued a law clarifying that “universal suffrage” does not include women.
Having said that, yes, the parliament was not entirely pro-women. But I was referring to the progressive movement that the regime was threatened by, and that was certainly more pro women’s lib than anything else seen in Bahrain before.
All,
I had assumed that sectarian tensions were more or less ambient within the current poplace, whereas you are telling me that the monarchy more or less introduced it with sectarian actors. Since you know more about Bahrain’s politics in this case than I do, I deffer to you, as my initial assumption may well be inaccurate.
Mahmood,
Fair enough. I trust your assessments via experience more than theorizing. But just to be clear:
– What would the state of sectarian tensions be, in your estimation, if the monarchy disappeared tomorrow, and a representative parliament assumed power instead?
– Do you think Bahrain would pick up where it left off in 1973 as being a progressive and liberal state, with respect for women’s rights, secular freedoms, et al?
Call me crazy, but I do not think the default position is liberal, Mahmood. We’re liberals! Its no secret that we are outnumbered. (Feel free to correct me on this, as you are more familiar with Bahraini society than I am). But this is my estimation.
This is why I was saying that once a strong solid liberal cultural base is up and running, via institutions, education, papers, a way of life really, then it will go without saying that our politics will follow, and also reflect those values.
I saw a interview last year on Bahraini news television regarding Iran’s nuclear reactors. Apparently Bahrain had sent some reporters into Iran to get the scoop on their nuclear ambitions, and they were taken on tours of labs, facilities, etc. The reporters came back saying they didnt think Iran wanted to develop nukes. The woman being interviewed said she didnt believe them. When the interviewer asked why, she said “Well, you have to remember, most of the reporters who went there were shia.”
Now I know this is one minute incident. It would be wrong to extrapolate from this what a typical response is. But thats exactly the question – just how typical/atypical IS this type of response from the citizenry? Or is this yet another symptom of what the monarchy sowed since 1973?
-Ibn
Ibn said:
Ideally that would be great. However, you have to understand that the royal family’s unfettered powers rely on being able to play the sectarian divide & rule game. That is why, as history has shown time and time again, the Al Khalifa regime will do everything it can to prevent any grassroot movements that break down the sectarian divide.
Why do you think all of the non-sectarian parliamentary candidates were prevented from gaining any seats?
I stand corrected Chan’ad, thanks.
Chan’ad,
Yes, I understand that the Al Khalifa regime wants to maintain its grip, and will not hesitate to play sect-based politics.
But I find myself wondering just how ingrained sect-based thinking is in the first place (in Bahrain). Is it pretty uniform across the citizenry independant of the monarchy? Or is the monarchy the source of it? I ask because they are two different ball games. I had assumed the former, and if that was the case, then a strong liberal culture needs to be developed. But if as you say it mainly coming from the monarchy, (and I trust your opinion more than mine on this since you are more familiar with Bahrain), then yes, its a vicious circle and the monarchy’s tentacles need to be dealt with directly, liberal culture or no liberal culture.
-Ibn
It’s difficult to lob blame on a certain party, especially when an issue is so historically ingrained. Historians should come forward at this point to shed proper light on the subject.
That said, my experience suggests that sectarianism is rife on all levels of society here. Speaking of the Shi’a specifically I know from first hand that they feel completely marginalised, hence stick together in order to ensure survival. Speaking from first hand experience again, the Sunnis view the Shi’a as tenacious and power grabbing, hence should be treated with utter suspicion as their ulterior motive is to exact revenge for their marginalisation by the Sunnis and Ruling elite.
The only people who have stood to calm both sides historically and currently to bring points of views together and to show each side that their fears of the others are unfounded are the liberal, socialist, leftist powers as is the case with the National Democratic Action Society (Wa’ad) and the Democratic Minbar (leftists, socialists, baathists, nasserites, Arab nationalists, etc) both of whom ran on a completely non-sectarian ticket and historically the various other labour movements as in Al-Baker and others.
The monarchy, as evidenced plainly by the recent elections and the claims of Bandargate are diligently working against rapprochement, their rationale probably is divide and rule; get people to get busy with sectarian issues and they will forget about anything else and leave us alone to rule. Or they genuinely believe that marginalising the Shi’a because of their revolutionary history – real or perceived – by strengthening the hand of the Sunnis will create the necessary protective buffer for them to continue to rule.
These, I must stress, are my own personal interpretation which might very well be off the mark. However, I believe they are true to the psyche of the Bahrain and Bahrainis I know and love.
The unfortunate thing is that if the above is true, then they might have worked in bygone eras. Now where everything is exposed and thoughts travel at the speed of light, these just won’t work. The only thing that does work and will ensure the longevity of monarchist rule is that which is viewed as fair and takes the benefit of the country, the whole country with all of its make-up and people, as a tactical and strategic views. It is this that is escaping the higher echelons of rule and most probably their advisers who probably still advice the continuation of rule by application of force rather than application of fairness, transparency, fair distribution of wealth, opportunities, education, non-discrimination, non-sectarianism and the like.
Excellent comments guys. But I think that your comments are focused too internally. Just my opinion.
Don’t you think that we have a very significant dependency on some external events that would significantly influence what will happen in Bahrain and in other Middle Eastern countries? Namely the peaceful resolution between Shi’a and Sunni in Iraq (most important in my opinion), and avoidence of open military conflict between Israel and Iran? In many Americans’ opinion today we need to help to establish an independent Palestine and help restore its infrastructures as part of this problem solving, but Mr. Ahmedinejad’s public comments about destroying Israel and Iranian nuclear weapons-ambitions are creating considerable diplomatic problems instead of helping. It seems to me that such external events could have major local impact for you all.
Other topic. One of my most important projects (I am 66 and retired) is to educate people about Islam and the Middle East although I am Christian. I spent a lot of time in ME over the decades and last visited in Bahrain and Dubai in March 06. I created a Web site caled bahraindubai.info (tourism focused) and packaged the Islam page into it. I would like to get some well educated inputs, preferably from both Shi’a and Sunni clerics about my Conclusions at the end of the Islam page. I really welcome input about anything that represents the truth. Brutally frank inputs are fine. Could someone please arrange such help? My email address is vicspencer@charter.net .
Thanks and best regards,
Vic
Thanks Mahmood, that was an informative post. I have my homework cut out. 🙂
-Ibn