A seminar held
on Friday 22nd August under the auspices of the
Bahrain Freedom
Movement and the Parliamentary Human Rights Group.
Speakers:
-
Lord Avebury, Vice Chairman of the Parliamentary Human
Rights Group
-
Hassan Mushaime, Vice President Al Wefaq National Islamic
Society
-
Ali Rabi’a, National Democratic Action Society and former
-
Baroness Uddin
-
Dr Saeed Shehabi, Bahrain Freedom Movement
Lord Avebury:
We are here to mark two anniversaries: the 32nd
anniversary of Bahrain’s independence on August 15, and the 28th
anniversary of the abrogation of the constitution in 1975 on
August 25. You will remember the cliché of George Santayana,
“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat
it”. Obviously, what happened in Bahrain in the early
seventies isn’t going to be repeated in the 21st
century, but we can certainly benefit from looking back at
those events and thinking about what can be learned from them.
Almost everywhere in the British Empire, self-government was
introduced before the colonialists departed. Hereditary rulers
were reduced to ceremonial figures in large parts of Africa
and Asia, and the ideas of democracy, freedom of the
individual and the rule of law were left behind. It must have
seemed to Bahrainis in 1971 that with the advent of
independence, they would start making decisions on governance
for themselves, and with a new constitution the following
year, they had every reason to be satisfied that progress was
being made.
Few people would have expected that for the next quarter of a
century Bahrain would step backwards into a political ice age,
with all the apparatus of repression and dictatorship that
followed the coup of 1975, when the Amir sent the infant
Parliament into oblivion. The lesson of that event was that
hereditary absolute monarchs do their best to hang onto power,
as Europeans know from their own history. Charles I of
England, Louis XVI of France, Ferdinand of Naples, and the
Tsar Nicholas of Russia all fought tooth and nail to avoid
giving up their rights and privileges to the people.
Where King Hamad has been rather more astute than his royal
predecessors has been that over the last three years he has
removed the worst excesses of his father’s régime, so that at
first people thought genuine advances were going to be made
towards democracy, but establishing only a painted façade of
democracy, bearing no much resemblance to the real thing.
People voted for the National Charter on the basis of
assurances given by the Amir that the 1973 constitution would
remain and would take precedence over the Charter; that
legislative power would belong solely to the elected House;
that the nominated Shura would be consultative only, and that
the powers of the Amir would be limited to those prescribed in
the 1973 Constitution.
Unfortunately, the Charter was a confusing and ambiguous
document, and there was no mechanism for challenging its
interpretation. There is to be a constitutional court, but you
can’t build a system of law from the top down. First, there
has to be an independent judiciary, which has never existed
and does not exist in Bahrain. This was one of the matters
dealt with by Cherie Blair in the lectures that she gave
during her visit in January, just after I had been there. Mrs
Blair’s office sent me copies of her lectures, on the
understanding that I would keep them for my own use and not
reveal them to any third party, which seemed odd to me since I
could hardly believe that she intended her words only for the
select audience who attended the lectures, when presumably the
visit was intended to emphasise the benefits of wider public
participation in the affairs of Bahrain.
The National Charter said that Bahrain would ‘join democratic
constitutional monarchies’, but the present system of
government bears no resemblance to any other modern
constitutional monarchy. Bahrain is only a constitutional
monarchy in the sense that it has a constitution and a
monarchy, but not in the sense that we use the term. The
monarch has no power over the appointment of ministers in
Britain, Spain, Japan or Holland. But in Bahrain, the King
appoints and dismisses the Prime Minister and other Ministers;
he appoints and dismisses members of the upper house; he
chairs the Higher Judicial Council (Article 33); he amends the
Constitution (Article 35); he has power to proclaim a state of
national safety or martial law (Article 36); he appoints civil
servants, military personnel and ambassadors (Article 40) and
he has power to dissolve the Chamber of Deputies (Article 42).
In the exercise of all these powers, he is constrained only by
the need to maintain harmony among the principal members of
the ruling family, who occupy all the leading positions in the
government without democratic legitimacy.
The National Charter, which was approved by the overwhelming
majority of the voters, said nothing about a new constitution,
and the abrogation of the previous constitution was an
arbitrary act of state, hardly an auspicious beginning for a
democracy.
The Charter provided (in Chapter V) that Bahrain would have a
bicameral system; one chamber ‘that is constituted through
free, direct elections whose mandate will be to enact laws,
and a second one that would have people with experience and
expertise who would give advice as necessary’. The
Constitution, however, gives the Consultative Council a veto
over legislation passed by the Chamber of Deputies. In the
event of a disagreement between the two Houses, they meet
together as a single entity, the ‘National Assembly’, in which
there would be the 40 elected Members, and the 40 Members
appointed to the Consultative Council by the King. It is
argued that the King nevertheless does not automatically get
his way, because it is possible that some of his appointees
may not follow the royal line on a particular measure.
However, not all the elected Members will oppose the King, and
if in spite of all the precautions, the National Assembly
fails to agree on a Bill within 15 days, the King can enact it
by decree (Article 87).
These are not minor flaws which can be corrected with the
passage of time, because only the King has power to amend the
Constitution. I think that the King agreed with me when I said
that democracy had to be a dynamic process, but there is no
discussion about the next stages that might be acceptable.
I did get some response when I talked about the provisions in
the Constitution which mention equality, and it was agreed
that I would send them material on the CRE and the EOC, which
the Foreign Office have now asked those bodies to provide. If
we can get them to think in these terms, it might enable them
to address the problem which is not discussed in polite
company, of discrimination against the Shi’a majority who
constitute 65% of the population. Shi’a are not employed in
the armed forces, the Ministry of the Interior, the police,
the customs and other public sector bodies. In the
organisations that do employ Shi’a, they are mainly
concentrated in the lower ranks.
The Shi’a feel threatened because of the government’s policy
of granting citizenship to foreign Sunnis from other Gulf
countries, as well as to Syrians, Yemenis, Pakistanis etc,
recruited into the armed forces and the police. They believe
that the policy is one of demographic engineering, to make
Bahrain a Sunni majority state. However, the foreigners are
increasingly causing resentment among Sunni natives, because
of their privileged lifestyles. Unless there is a political
will to implement the constitution’s promise of equality there
can never be harmony and social cohesion
Another serious grievance is Decree 56, which exonerates
public servants for any acts they committed before July 2002.
This means that the torturers who killed and severely injured
many people under the previous Amir cannot be prosecuted. I
did venture to suggest that this Decree was not compatible
with Bahrain’s obligations under the Convention Against
Torture, and it would be agreed that if Bahrain is to take its
place among democracies, obedience to the rule of
international law is essential.
Finally, there is another taboo subject which I found was
discussed behind closed doors in Bahrain, but not in public:
the endemic corruption, which infects business and causes
investors to look elsewhere for opportunities in the Gulf.
Let me end on a positive note. I found, during my visit, that
there are many new NGOs springing up, including an independent
women’s organisation which was awaiting approval. There were
new trade unions, human rights organisations, and bodies that
could become political parties if allowed to do so. Friends of
Bahrain should encourage the growth of civil society, and
perhaps there is more we can do from the UK to help the
process. But let us remember the events of the early
seventies, and acknowledge that as long as all effective power
remains in the grip of the ruling family, fundamentally
nothing has changed.
Mr Hassan Mushaime:
It’s my honour to address you and bring to your kind attention
the voice of the people of Bahrain. First, I would like to
thank you for your help and support during our struggle for
freedom and democracy in our country. You achieved a moral
high ground when you responded to our calls from behind bars
for freedom from thousands of miles away. We appreciate your
good deeds.
You may have heard about the kindness and the good nature of
Bahrainis. This peaceful and generous nation is, yet, under
another threat. It is the cultural genocide Culturecide or
Ethnocide - This is conducted through what is known as
political naturalization.
Repressing a nation is not achieved by the use of military
force; changing the demography of a society, which is worse,
is another means. This is what is actually taking place,
nowadays, in Bahrain. The Government is trying to oppress the
natives by means of naturalizing selective people from
selective regions for its political agenda.
In this short presentation, I will endeavour to brief you
about the background of this threat and its violation to us as
Bahrainis and to, seek your assistance, once again, to
confront this humanitarian crime and call for its termination.
Another view, a legal one, is included for legal reference.
For the time allowed, I will be presenting the political
naturalization from a human rights perspective For the past
few decades, the Government of Bahrain has mobilized the
naturalization of foreigners to secure state political
stability through changing the demography of society.
The Government has illegally, selectively and secretly granted
citizenship to those from the Sunni sect of Islam, to forcibly
turn them into a majority. The act of changing the demography
was denounced not only by Shia figures, but also by Sunni
leaders. Most of the naturalized aliens work in security
related institutions. They were extensively used for
repressing the movement for freedom and democracy during the
nineties.
The evidence is clear, as it will be later presented in this
report, that these people were given Bahraini citizenships to
serve political objectives. That’s why we call it political
naturalization.
Political naturalization violates human rights in many
aspects:
1. Discrimination against native Bahrainis:
Political naturalization discriminates against the native
people of Bahrain:
While hundreds of people were born in Bahrain, and so their
ancestors, are still characterised as bedoon or stateless,
the Government freely grants citizenship to people who have
not lived in Bahrain; not even for a day.
While 18,000 Bahrainis are unemployed-15% of the labour force
as per the official figures, most of the naturalized for
political reasons enjoy state jobs following their arrival to
Bahrain. They are mainly employed by the Bahrain Ministry of
Defense, Ministry of Interior, and the National Guards. It is
important to remark that the majority of the indigenous people
of Bahrain are not allowed to work in these institutions.
Most of the politically-naturalized are granted houses by the
government from day one of their arrival, whereas the native
people of Bahrain have to wait for years, extending in certain
cases to a decade, in order to benefit from the governmental
housing scheme.
The discrimination stretches to higher educational
institutions such as the University of Bahrain and Bahrain
Training Institute where administrations show favourable
treatment towards politically-naturalized instructors against
natives who have been waiting for a very long time to be
granted scholarships to continue their postgraduate studies.
The above cases are clear evidence of institutional
discrimination practices against the native Bahraini people.
2. The Rule of Law and Abuse of Power:
During the politically-driven naturalization process, the
Government of Bahrain did not abide by the law, which is the
main pillar of any democracy and civil society. All of those
granted citizenship, on political grounds, were naturalized
outside the legal framework.
The Bahraini Citizen Act does not allow people to have dual
citizenship or to be naturalized without having lived for at
least 15 consecutive years in Bahrain for the Arabs and 25
years for non-Arabs. Most of the politically-naturalized
people have not fulfilled such legal requirements. Some of
them have never been to Bahrain before and neither have their
ancestors. Therefore, they are not legally qualified to be
granted Bahraini citizenship.
In a civil society, the rule of the law should be the first
objective of democracy. Unfortunately, the tribal system has
superseded the law and the constitution.
3. Pseudo-Democracy and Manipulation of Election Results (Zallaq
case):
There is clear evidence that the Bahraini government has
naturalized these people to manipulate the election process
and tamper with its results. The evidence was clear in the
last 2002 elections where changing the demography of
constituencies in, for example, Zallaq region, altered the
distribution of votes.
There were 2019 eligible voters in Zallaq of whom only 806
voters resided in Bahrain. The rest did not exist in reality.
Around 60% of those who voted and who have never lived in
Bahrain were from the group that had been granted citizenship
while living abroad. Eight percent of the voters are
naturalized people living in the country. Only 32% of the
voters were natives of Bahrain. Therefore, the natives did not
have much to say in these elections; in fact, the government
directed the politically-naturalized group to their candidate.
This group did not know whom they were voting for and for what
issues or reasons; they had no interest in Bahrain at all;
according to them, they only voted because their tribal chief
instructed them to do so. In this way, the government had
manipulated the elections results in favour of its candidates.
The change in demography, in this deviant way, is definitely
damaging the infant democracy in Bahrain.
4. Naturalization for Security Reasons to Repress Native
Dissidents:
Most people who have been given Bahraini citizenship for
political reasons were given jobs in security related
departments such as Bahrain Ministry of Defense, Ministry of
Interior and the National Guards. Most of them work as
anti-riot police, political prison guards, and in the
intelligence department and torture the detainees. During the
90’s political unrest, the Government of Bahrain used this
group extensively to suppress the political movement for
freedom and democracy.
These people were carefully selected for their sect and from
areas notorious for their fanaticism, sectarian hate and
tension such as Bulchestan, Yemen, and Deir-ez-Zur in Syria.
Those people are historically known for their prejudice and
intolerance.
5. Naturalization to Create Social & Sectarian Division:
The Government of Bahrain is using the political
naturalization card in creating social and sectarian division,
practicing the old colonial tactic divide & rule. In this way,
the government can weaken the social fabric of the society so
there will be no strong unity among people with which people
can have collective power to demand more freedom and
democracy. Social unity and harmony is the nucleus for the
development of any civil society.
Over the past few years, there has been social chaos and
clashes between natives and the politically-naturalized people
who do not respect the social norms or appreciate the Bahraini
culture. Many of them have been convicted for robbery and
other unethical behaviour. Among the famous clashes is the
one that took place at Jaw village in 1997 when the former
Emir and police interfered and solved the issue. In an recent
incident last February, there were some clashes between the
natives of Askar village and the politically-naturalized
people who constitute 24% of Askar village voters. The police
had to interfere and put down the clashes.
In conclusion, it is evident that Political Naturalization has
violated human rights of Bahrainis in many ways. It is
becoming part of the institutional discrimination against
people. It must be challenged and stopped.
Political Naturalization is a weapon that is used against
Bahrainis as they strive for freedom and democracy. Once
again, I urge you to help us to stop the Culturecide in
Bahrain.
FILM: ON THE
CAUSEWAY TO SAUDI ARABIA
Interviews with Saudis who were granted Bahraini nationality
and who voted in the Bahraini elections at a centre on the
King Fahd causeway.
Ali Rabia :
The
Constitutional Crisis in Bahrain
Bahrain enjoyed a short-lived parliamentary experiment in the
years 1974 and 75 and I was an elected a member of
parliament. Our constitution of 1973 is a replica of the
Kuwaiti one in which the executive power remains vested in the
hands of the Emir and the legislative power is shared between
the thirty elected members and the 12 ministers by virtue of
their portfolio. This type of democracy awarded by the
Bahraini constitution is partial - or what you call
rudimentary- and it does not allow a peaceful transition of
power and the practice of a multi-party system. Even though
the elected National Assembly enjoyed a monitoring power over
the executive branch of the government and could pass laws. It
is because of these powers that the ruling family felt uneasy
towards this new experiment and decided to dissolve the
parliament and suspend the country’s constitution on 26th
August 1975 .
Since the dissolution of parliament Bahrain was run by Emiri
Decrees and by implementing the state security law which was
unanimously rejected by parliament. As a result of this
situation political stagnation persisted in the country and in
the nineteen nineties we witnessed the emergence of the
constitutional movement which was led by the Popular Petition.
When His Highness Sheikh Hamad succeeded his father on the
throne on March 1 he took the initiative to put an end to the
seven years of political struggle by declaring political and
administrative reforms that would transform Bahrain to a
constitutional monarchy. In this respect the government
declared that a National Charter is to be voted on in order to
pave the way for this democratic change. The National Charter
contained two important amendments to be carried out to the
constitution of 1973. The first amendment is to convert the
Emirship to a Monarchy and the second one is to replace the
unicameral parliament by a bicameral one.
The democratic movement in Bahrain welcomed this step but
because the relationship between the two chambers was not
defined clearly and distinctly the opposition insisted that
the government should make public what functions are related
to each of the houses. The democratic movement believed that
for a referendum to be constitutional it is imperative that
the subject matter to be voted on is made crystal clear and
understandable by the voters. And in its public statements the
democratic movement threatened that unless the leadership
makes a clarification towards this ambiguity the opposition
will take the stance of boycotting the referendum. This point
of view was delivered personally to His Highness the Emir in
his subsequent meetings with the opposition.
In compliance with the opposition’s demand and in order to win
the confidence of the voters, the leadership gave the
following assurances:-
1) The Deputy Emir was the first one to hold a press
conference on 5th Feb. 2001 and to stress the point that only
two amendments are to be carried out to the constitution of
1973 in order to make our constitution compatible with the
institutional development, and that only the elected council
will be the legislative power.
2) On 7th Feb. and in his meeting with the religious leaders
His Highness the Emir gave his signature of approval on what
became known as the document of the clergy . This document
states among other things the following conditions :-
a) That the elected council will be the legislative power and
that the appointed council will be merely for consultation.
b) The constitution of 1973 will have superiority over the
National Charter.
c) That the due amendments shall be carried out within the
mechanism of the constitution (article (104).
At the end of this historic meeting the clergy requested His
Highness the Emir that these assurances are made public to the
people and as a result the Minister of Justice held a press
conference on 9th Feb in which he emphasized that the elected
council would remain as the legislative power and that the
appointed one would act as a consultative chamber .
After these
formal assurances both the Committee for Popular Petition (C.P.P.)
and the Bahrain Freedom Movement issued their statements
calling on the people to vote ‘Yes’ to the National Charter.
The referendum was conducted on 14th and 15th Feb. and because
of the encouragement of the opposition 98.4% of the voters
voted in favour of the National Charter. On 25th Feb. 2001 the
Emiri decree No. 5 for 2001 was issued calling for the
formation of a committee to amend certain provisions of the
constitution . It was headed by the Minister of Justice and
Islamic Affairs Sheikh Abdulla Bin Khalid Al-Khalifa. This
committee is in violation of article 104 which states clearly
that amendments to the constitution are to be done through the
legislative power and should be approved by two thirds
majority of the total elected members of the parliament.
But the most rigorous violation is the amendment itself.
Instead of passing the two amendments which were specified in
the National Charter a new constitution was ratified and
issued on 14th Feb. 2002. In the new constitution we
discovered to our astonishment that the legislative power of
the contractual constitution of 1973 has been usurped and that
the appointed council is to enjoy the same legislative powers
as the elected one. The failure of the political leadership to
keep its promises and commitments came as a shock to the
Bahraini community .
On 3rd July the Emir issued new four laws of which one was the
law of exercising political rights . This law forbids
political societies from carrying out election campaigns,
sponsoring candidates or issuing election programs and it only
restricted political participation to individuals. Another
important development was the issuance of the law related to
the establishment of the commission for financial control and
audit. Instead of attaching this national commission to the
elected chamber as it was in the constitution of 1973 it was
blatantly annexed to the ruler. According to this law the
executive branch itself looks after auditing the public
finance. Furthermore the by-laws of the parliament and Shura
councils have confiscated the right of political societies to
practice overt political activity and as per the statement of
the state minister for Cabinet Affairs the societies should
engage in politics and do not work in politics. Because of
these regressive developments the constitutional movement and
the people of Bahrain felt they were betrayed. As a result of
this development four major political societies boycotted the
elections and have ultimately succeeded in winning 46% of the
voters on their side.
The present political situation in Bahrain:
The Emir’s proposal that his political and constitutional
reforms would expand democracy symbolized a vital fresh start
in 2001 and the failure to implement this project has meant a
crisis of trust in the whole political system. As a result of
this failure the political compromise went out of the window
creating despair and frustration. Two months ago parliament
ended its first session and the people’s impression is that
this institution is incapable of representing their hopes and
ambitions, passing laws or exercising checks and balances on
the government. The citizens who endorsed their candidates in
the last election have discovered for themselves that their
MP’s are helpless because of the influence of the appointed
council and now they are confused about their future role in
the political process. This negative outcome led to a steep
decline in trust for the government. No doubt the new
constitution has shattered our dreams of having the partial
democracy of the seventies returned to this country. And in
view of the current partnership of power and wealth it is
impossible to build the basis of the constitutional monarchy
which H. Highness the king promised to build . As a result of
the outgoing Bahrain is becoming increasingly polarized
because:
1) The Shias who compromise nearly 2/3 of the population are
still banned from working in the defense force or the national
guard.
2) Unemployment is on the rise and Bahrain is now witnessing
the gathering and assembly of the unemployed. This is the
problem which triggered the uprising.
3) Naturalization of Bedouins from Syria and of other
nationalities is continuing to put more pressure on the
services of the government mainly the housing scheme,
national health , electricity and education.
4) Absence of equal opportunity in employment, education and
in holding of government positions.
5) Corruption in high places is being publicly acknowledged
and there is no indication that the authorities will deal with
it. These are complex and difficult issues that can only be
resolved through a fully-fledged democracy and an independent
parliament.
On 25th July 2003 in the Spectacular Newspaper His
Highness the king announced that the reform project had been
implemented in a positive manner to serve the people of
Bahrain. But to our misfortune the type of democracy we have
cannot be classified as modernization and constitutional
monarchy. Sovereignty does not lie in the hands of the people
– there is also a lack of the separation of the three
powers as the legislative and the judiciary are dominated by
the executive power. In other words elections alone cannot
bring democracy.
Conclusion:
We are now
living in a phase in which the place for reform has been
closed. And in order to open this door we have to resort to
the united democratic movement. At present the major political
societies which boycotted the election are joining forces
together with independent political figures in order to press
for real constitutional reforms. This democratic movement, as
I imagine, is going to seek recourse from the country’s
constitution of 1973 and it will make sure that the future
reforms bring the required constitutional monarchy and full
democracy. This of course will not be possible without the
honest and sincere support of western democracies and the
democratic forces all over the world and I am sure that they
will extend their help.
Baroness Uddin:
Thank you very much for allowing me to participate in this
discussion with you today. It has been a very informative,
very short one hour. I have not heard very much about what you
said earlier, so this is very important.
I cannot speak
for your country because I am not a Bahraini citizen and I
think that we in the West should learn a little bit more about
keeping out of other peoples country’s. Given that we have not
that so far, I will just take the liberty of making a few
comments.
Whatever
changes you desire for your country, we as British
parliamentarians can only contribute in the global context.
Unfortunately, very little is in our hands that is not
approved of by America at the moment. I hope that if you have
a cause, if you have things that you want people to hear,
there are more people who need to be talked to. These include
the wider European and British audience. I say this as someone
who belongs to the All Party Group on Bahrain. We have not had
any representation from any of you before and I will ask my
parliamentary colleagues to hear some of you.
My contact has
been with Bahraini women and I have been very encouraged by
some of the progress in comparison with some of the other
countries in the Gulf and in the Middle East. I am very much
inspired by the aspirations, energy and commitment of Bahraini
women. I have not met everyone, I do not know who they are in
the context of their country, I have met those who have come
here. I am going to Bahrain and I want to learn.
I hope that is
something that we can offer because politics now is so global
that we have much to learn from each other. I want to share
something, a very small lesson with you. I am a Muslim who
lives in an area called Tower Hamlets and we have been
somewhat at the mercy of the Boundary Commission. Bahrain has
learned something from demographic politicisation - if that
is what you are referring to – from British politics. In
Britain, and in other countries, boundary changes are
something that is often utilised to the advantage of whoever
is in power. I just want to assure you that it is not only
happening in Bahrain. I don’t know how much of it is happening
in Bahrain. It is something that is not new in Britain. In
inner city areas where there has been a Muslim or a Hindu
majority boundary commissions have been advised by people who
are in positions of authority to try and work around so there
is an element of majority voting. It happens in Britain not
only in your country. I have protested against this on many
occasions before.
Thank you very
much, I just wanted to say people like myself have very
limited contact with what you are saying and I am very
grateful to learn something from it. I think the kind of
changes we have seen, that have come from Bahrain, seem very
positive. We need to make sure we build on that and anything
else that we can do to advance progress – especially for
women.
Lord Avebury:
We are particularly delighted to have Baroness Uddin with us.
I would like to thank her for the interest she has taken in
Bahrain and I hope that during her visit she will have time
not just for the appointments that are arranged for her by the
government but to get out into the villages and talk to
ordinary women and not just to the people at the top. I think
she will find that the message from the women in the villages
is something quite different from what she will see from the
leaders in society. If you don’t hear those messages you don’t
get a balanced picture of what is going on in Bahrain.
PR representative of the Bahraini government:
I have to take my leave as well so I would like to say a few
words and thank you for hosting this event. You talked about
the hereditary process which you and I benefit from with our
hereditary titles. Baroness Uddin is there from merit. There
is a hereditary process both here and in Bahrain and all over
the world.
I really want to
talk to Hassan and Ali and say first of all to you Hassan, I
was there at that meeting that Al Wefaq held just before the
elections in October. It was a wonderful sight. I was led to
the front row of that meeting where you and your party called
for the boycott of the elections. There were 40,000 people at
the meeting. I was led up to the front row among the
international press delegations. The international press said
the following day more like 8,000 were present but that meant
nothing to me. I was impressed as I walked out and I said to
the international press corps ‘Can anyone see a policeman?’
They all looked round and there were just masses of people
listening to this debate. We found one policeman, who was a
traffic policeman organising parking for the people who had
come to listen to you and your party calling for the boycott
of the elections. I do not think you would have seen this in
Bahrain or anywhere else in the Gulf. You certainly wouldn’t
see it anywhere in the Gulf now, but you certainly would not
have seen it in Bahrain two years ago. And I say to Ali again
just because you boycotted the election, and 54 percent of
the nation go and doesn’t automatically mean that the other
46 percent would have voted for you. Voting is about going out
and voting. These are my final words. You now have a democracy
in Bahrain.
Intervention:
We do not.
PR representative of the Bahraini government:
Your two parties chose to boycott the elections. It is no
good now having boycotted the elections, going around the
world, crying over spilt milk. You have democracy, use it. Go
back to Bahrain, encourage your people to vote, encourage them
to vote the way you want them to vote and then you can conduct
democracy the way we conduct it here, by a majority. Thank you
so much for your time.
Mr Hassan Mushaime:
If we take part in the next elections it means that we have
given legitimacy to an unconstitutional constitution. This is
the first point. Second, if we participate inside parliament,
we can do nothing. There is an English proverb that there is
no use keeping a cat which does not catch mice.
PR representative of the Bahraini government:
Ali, I hear what you say. There was a vote in parliament here
about the form of our parliament. It is over 600 years old. We
are still changing it now. But the other day parliament had
six options on the reform of the Lords.
Mr Hassan Mushaime:
I believe in evolution and not devolution. Evolution has to
start from the constitution. But we had devolution. Now the
constitution has been deluted.
PR representative of the Bahraini government:
Let me answer that Ali. As I said 98 percent of the people,
voted for the National Action Charter. You are talking about
democracy.
Dr Saeed Shehabi:
This was conditional on what was promised.
PR representative of the Bahraini government:
Let me go back to what I was not allowed to answer. Our
democracy is still evolving here. Tony Blair has vastly
changed the powers of the executive and the electorate. Most
recently there were six options given to parliament over the
way that the Lords would be further emasculated in the
Commons. There were six options and they could not agree with
a majority on any of those six options. So at the moment we
have nothing happening. Isn’t that right Dr Avebury?
Lord Avebury:
It is perfectly right. But this is a false analogy because, as
you say, democracy is an evolving process. This is something I
said to the king which I thought he agreed with. You don’t
have a set of reforms which you place on the table and say
‘that’s it – now we sit back we have done the job, there is
nothing to be done for the next 50 years.’ This is what seems
to have happened in Bahrain. You have a fossilized system
which seems to have been handed down by the emir and there is
no way of altering it. In our case, however, parliament gets
it wrong. I am sure they got it wrong in the case you are
talking about but that is their mistake. It is not the mistake
of someone that has come down from somewhere in Buckingham
Palace and said this is what you are going to do.
PR representative of the Bahraini government:
We are talking about a system in the UK which has evolved over
1200 years. You are talking about Bahrain where it has only
been a year since the first elections.
Intervention:
Do you want us to wait 1200 years?
PR representative of the Bahraini government:
Of course I don’t want you to wait 1200 years, like we have
had to here in the UK. But I don’t see why you are coming here
to complain about only one year when we have had to wait 1200.
Thank you so much for your time.
Karen Dabrowska:
Who is this gentleman? He did not introduce himself.
Lord Avebury:
He is the public relations gentleman who looks after the
interests of Bahrain in the UK. He is public relations adviser
to the Bahraini state.
Dr Saeed Shehabi, Bahrain Freedom Movement:
I understand that Lord Avebury will conduct a tour for us
after this discussion. Some people want to go inside
parliament.
I would like to say that firstly no country can be run by
policies of deception. For a country to have a public
relations officer paid by the government shows that it needs
to enhance its reputation through the use of money.
Bahrain has been ruled by a policy of deception. That is why
many people, like our friend who has just left, believe there
is a pluralist democracy. We have a democracy in Bahrain, why
don’t we use it? It is a democracy in which the prime minister
has been in the same position since 1971 until today. It is a
democracy in which a constitution is given to us and we have
no right to question the legitimacy of that constitution.
This is what I would like to call a policy of deception. They
spend a lot of money to convince people that there is a
democracy, a democracy that brings people who are paid large
salaries just to agree and to approve what the government
tells them. The so-called parliament has no right to initiate
debate on any topic. They discuss the topics that are given to
them by the government.
We believe that no country can be run by decrees. Only the
decrees issued by the ruler are put into practise. The decrees
are there to be implemented. Other regulations that are not
decrees have no power. People can debate them for years and
years without anything being implemented.
We consider the National Charter null and void because 98% of
the people voted for the charter. This was conditional on the
promises that were published in the newspapers and that can be
seen on the internet now. If the ruler reneges on these
promises the charter is null and void. The contract is not
there because one party to that contract has withdrawn from
it.
The relationship between the government, the Al Khalifa ruling
family and the people of Bahrain must not be taken to be
eternal. We must not see our fate as being inextricably linked
to that of the ruling family. There could be a change. Saddam
Hussein has gone. His motto was “Saddam is here to stay”. It
is illogical to believe that this dynasty or ruling family
should rule a country forever. No dynasty or tribe or clique
can rule a country forever.
The future of the government and the political process in
Bahrain depends on a contractual constitution. We will never
accept an imposed constitution. If the ruling family is to
remain it should enter into a contractual agreement with the
people. They cannot just impose their will, laws, regulations
and constitution on one side.
The Gulf region in general cannot continue to be run by
absolute monarchies, this is against the law of societies,
against the law of international democracy and international
conventions. If we are to have a constitutional monarchy that
is fine. But the constitutional monarchy should be regulated
by acceptable and contractual rules.
It is impossible to accept a change in the demography of the
country. We just saw the film. It speaks of a government that
lies, it issues an id to a person with a false address. This
is how our country is run. When the government is directly
involved in deception and forging documentation that speaks
for itself.
Our hope is that something will evolve. The country is in a
mess at present. Of course the government has managed to get
some people to its side: both foreigners and Bahrainis. But
this does not alter the fact that there is a big gap between
the people of Bahrain and the ruling family.
General discussion:
Comment:
Since the struggle started in 1994 a quarter of the population
has been in jail simply because they were in favour of the
rule of law and the real constitution. The real constitution
was killed and another constitution was imposed. The only
solution is for the monarchy to serve the country but not to
govern. If this does not happen there will be more martyrs. We
should not be looking at issues such as unemployment - we
should be looking at the main issue which is the constitution.
Comment: We are all Bahraini citizens - part of that
society. The film showed
some shameful practices. There must be some way to correct
these. The law
should be invoked. My friends have mentioned a lot about the
constitution
and what is wrong with it with it but there are also some
good things in the constitution. Women make up 40 - 50 percent
of society. In the past certain people were banned from the
university and could not study but this does not happen
anymore to my knowledge. Concessions have been made - the fees
have
been reduced by 500 percent. Some people do not like the 1973
constitution
and there are some good things in the 2003 constitution. We
should not focus
on the bad things. We must present the good things which
happened during the past two or three years - the film was
made -it was not banned - this is a good thing.
Question:
Has the Bahraini government arrested the people who gave false
passports?
Answer: I am not speaking on behalf of the government.
A committee was formed to investigate this issue.
Lord Avebury:
I think the answer to that question must be 'no' because we
would have known about it by now.
Abdul Malek: There are some vary ominous developments I
think we are now going to see the same sort of thing in Iraq.
This is not often appreciated by Western observers. Religion
in the Gulf area has the same importance religion had in 17th
century Europe. Especially now with Iraq, the idea of a Shia
state where 60 - 80 percent of the people are Shia, is on the
cards. But there will be moves to stop this, especially from
neighbouring states. The Dawasa tribe from Saudi Arabia being
given Bahraini citizenship is a religious issue. I am all for
the Shias working with the Al Khalifa and co-operating wit
them but they have to be strong and say ' look here we are
the majority.
We could be sitting here in 50 years time when there are 50
percent Shias and 50 percent Sunnis. It will be a fait
accompli and what are you doing to do about it then? The Iraqi
issue and the Bahraini issue are connected now - the Shia of
Iraq and the Shias of Bahrain must stand up and say weare the
majority and we have got to be seen as the majority. They have
to be given the positions they deserve such as the Minister of
the Interior.
Lord Avebury: The issue of political
naturalisation connects to the issue of the constitution
because as long as you have the present arrangement whereby
the king appoints all the ministers and there is no majority
rule which will be normal in a democratic state, the people
who represent 70 percent of the population would naturally
assume they would get 70 percent of the ministers. I think it
is very important that you raised this point. If Bremer means
what he says about a democratic system in Iraq it means that
70 percent of the people who rule Iraq are going to be Shia.
That could be a role model for Bahrain which has adopted the
principle of democracy yet it seems to be in the dark ages
where the king appoints the ministers.
Question: Do you think there is a link between the
persecution of the Shias in Bahrain and the persecution of
Shias in other Muslim countries. If you think there is a
linkage how can this problem be solved?
Question:
The constitution of 2002 did not give the women more than the
constitution of 2003. They say that the citizens have the
right to be elected. I do not want things on paper, I want to
things implemented. We must have the umbrella of a proper law
and we must have a proper constitution in which we elect our
representatives. An agreement is made between two parties - if
one of the parties breaks the agreement the agreement becomes
null and void.
Answer: It has the same clause as is found in the
constitution of Kuwait.
But the court said that the word citizen means just the male
citizens.
Lord Avebury: I think we can agree that the 1973
constitution was not perfect
and there may be features in the 2002 constitution which
should be incorporated
in any future amendment. The difficulty is that there is no
mechanism by which the people can amend the constitution. The
only way it can be amended is by decree and this is a
fundamental problem which we face. We do not think about
Bahrain as being a constitutional democracy because in a
constitutional democracy it is the people who alter the
constitution and not the king.
Comment: Thank you for opening up the discussion to
include the wider Muslim
world. I am a regular visitor to Bahrain and I am a Shia
Muslim. In certain countries, like Iraq, the Shias are in a
majority and if there is going to be a fundamental change in
the region than Shia ascendency will be there without any
doubt. The fear about what the Shias will do which is in the
hearts of the ruling elites in the Middle East is unfounded.
Subsequent to the revolution in Iran it wanted to be
independent ,ruled by its own constitution. It is a lot more
democratic than many of the regimes in that part of the world.
You may disagree - I am talking in a broader sense. It is
certainly
more democratic than Pakistan where Washington decides to put
in Mr Musharraf
or remove Mr Sherrif. Bahrain is really a microcosm of what is
happening in the region. The majority is Shia and they must
not be persecuted. Their rights have to be respected and
nobody talks about it. Why is this issue neglected. These
issues needed to be looked at.
Lord Avebury: I think that in another context we need
to discuss that issue.
It may well be that politicians, NGOs and religious
organisations have
neglected the connection between the persecution of the Shia
in these various countries. At some point we may have a
seminar of this topic. If you look at what is
happening in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain you do see persecution.
But Bahrain
is unique - it has a 70 percent Shia population but in the
other countries
where there is a Shia majority, like Iraq, with a bit of
luck they should get a Shia government which should be a
role model for the rest of the world. I agree with you, this
is a problem which Muslims have to address. Some of the Muslim
NGO's in this country could give this matter some thought.
What contribution should we make? What contribution is it
possible to make? Someone said that London is the centre of
the Muslim world as this is where the intellectual discussion
is.
Hassan Mushaime:
I would like to make some comments on the issues which
have been raised. There have been many comments about women.
We spoke to
the emir last week and we told him we have no problem about
women – this is not the really important issue in the area.
They did not give women rights in Bahrain for the sake of
women. They just want to show the people in the West that they
respect women's rights. But do they have any women ministers?
A point was made that we have to mention the good things and
the bad things about the constitution. That is good. We have
done our best to talk to the king. We did our best to find an
open door to talk to him and to explain the issues. We sat
together with two ministers for two or
three days and we told them that you only talk to us when you
have a problem.
You forget there are different points about which we agree and
disagree
with.
Let us sit together and talk about different issues so we can
solve our problems without going outside, without writing
outside. the government is showing the others that the country
is different that the government is different, there is a kind
of democracy. This is why they need to talk. I told them it is
not enough if you talk and then you do the opposite. In
Bahrain you can talk and say whatever you want to say and the
government does what it wants to do. This is not democracy.
The government has to listen to the nation. When we talk we
want to co-operate together.
I feel that Bahrain is getting worse and worse. There are a
lot of problems in the country. We are not against those
people, not against the government. We want to bring peace. We
want to build our country together. I want to emphasise that
there is no problem between the Shias and the Sunnis in
Bahrain. The problem is created by the government. It is
trying to politicise the situation. For a long time they have
a strategic agenda. The government is always trying to
separate the Sunnis and the Shias and not let them work
together. The political naturalisation is against everyone in
Bahrain - it is against the Sunnis. The people who come just
to get citizenship will not stand with the Sunnis. They are
only coming for the money. One of the Syrian people was given
a two storey house but he rented the house and lived in the
garage. They only want to get money. They complain about
injustice. One said I
have two wives and they only gave me one house. We have to
work together to solve problems. Do not describe the situation
as one of Sunni against Shias. For a long time we have lived
together. In Saudi Arabia the situation is different - the
Sunnis are different - they are wahabis. But this is not a
problem in Bahrain.
It was said that Al Wefaq wanted to vote and take part in the
government but we saw that this is not possible. There is no
way you can do anything for the people in Bahrain - that is
why we did not vote. Until now we are trying to discuss the
problems with the government and if we find a solution we will
co-operate with them. In the 1973 constitution there is a kind
of agreement between the nation and the government – but it is
not there in the 2002 constitution. That means we have gone
backwards.
There is more power in the hands of the king. When they find a
solution we will co-operate with them.
Lord Avebury:
I would like to thank our speakers and those who have taken
part in the discussion. I will just put to you the main issues
that we have talked about and express some views from this
meeting some views to the government of Bahrain and to
colleagues such as Baroness Uddin, who take an active interest
in the affairs of Bahrain in our parliament.
The number one issue about which we have talked about is
political naturalisation. You want to stop political
naturalisation if it is still going on and I hope that the
publicity you have given to the issue may be enough to stop
it. But if it is still continuing we would like that to be
stopped.
Number two: there has been a lot of talk about the
constitution. We need to go back to the 1973 constitution as a
starting point because change has to be evolutionary. You
can’t suddenly have change coming down from on high in the
form of diktat which tells people now you have a new
constitution – now you have to start from this point. Any
political reforms mean that you go back to the 1973
constitution with all its defects and use is as a starting
point.
Three: We want an end to discrimination.
Four: We want a repeal decree No 56 which exempts torturers
from the consequences of their actions.
Fifth: We want to repeal the press laws.
Sixth: There has to be an end to corruption. It was a
constant theme of conversations I had when I was in Bahrain.
The whole of the sea bed belongs to the king and every time
there is a new development in the shallow waters off Bahrain
this land is parcelled out to the cronies and millions of
dirhams are made from the assets which are generated from the
natural wealth of Bahrain which obviously belong to the people
as a whole. That is one example of gross corruption which
everyone talks of behind the scenes but no one dares to come
out with in public. When you talk about freedom of expression
there is quite a lot you can say but there are certain limits
beyond which you cannot go.
Finally everyone wants there to be a meaningful dialogue with
national reconciliation. Dialogue must be on the basis that
the royal family agrees that democracy was not brought down
from the heavens when the 2002 constitution was issued. That
was not the end of the process – it has to be continuing and
it has to involve the people at every stage of its
development.
Those are the main points which have emerged from our
discussion today. They will be embodied in a note which will
be put to the Bahraini authorities and those we are in contact
with in the UK. It remains for me to thank you all. I hope we
will have more good news to report on when we meet in one
year’s time.
BFM Statement 22
August 2003
Bahrain: Real democracy to end decades of political strife
When the British withdrew from Bahrain on 15 August 1971, the
Al Khalifa ruling family, which had ruled the country since
they conquered it in 1783, pledged to establish a
constitutional democracy. Their pledge was put into practice
soon afterwards. A contractual constitution was drawn up and
an elected parliament elected. By mid 1975, the prime minister
had no more stomach for a pseudo-democratic experience that
would question the policies of his government. He took the
decision to abandon the constitutional experiment and
suspended the articles of the constitution relating to it.
That was the first coup against the people's right to
participate in running their own affairs.
After 25 years of struggle the people managed to bring their
case to the attention of the international community. In 1994
a popular uprising erupted and the situation in Bahrain became
an international issue. When the former ruler, Sheikh Isa bin
Salman Al Khalifa passed away in 1999, his son, Sheikh Hamad,
assumed power. It now appears that in the first two years of
his rule he had drawn his strategy that would change the
fabric of Bahraini society forever. He decided on a
fundamental change of the rules of the political game, by
undertaking to change the delicate balance within Bahraini
society. He would not tolerate dissent by any group, and he
would take sufficient measures to make that possible. He
decided to uproot the political traditions and impose his own.
First he abrogated the only legal document that offered
legitimacy to the Al Khalifa rule in the country, and on 14
February 2002, he declared the imposition of his own
constitution. Meanwhile he had already taken steps to offer
Bahraini nationality to tens of thousands of foreigners,
thereby destablising the internal demographic balance. His
uncle imported foreign workers in large numbers in order to
weaken the local workforce. Sheikh Hamad is now importing new
people whom he wants to rule, thus undermining the natives of
the country.
In order to make those fundamental changes possible, he had to
undertake some positive steps, like the release of political
prisoners, allowing the return of political exiles and
allowing a degree of freedom of speech. He has however,
tightened his grip over the media, the police, the army and
the intelligence.
Today, as we
celebrate 32 years of independence and 28 years of
non-constitutional rule, an atmosphere of pessimism is all but
engulfing the country. No material change has occurred to
improve the peoples standard of living or augment freedoms.
The past few weeks have witnessed an increase in tension with
the protests of the unemployed, the prisoners and the taxi and
bus drivers. The political societies which were allowed to
function feel marginalized and are offered only symbolic
freedom to act, while the policy of the ruling family is based
on the motto: "you say what you want, we do what we want".
Until today,
there has never been any national dialogue or reconciliation.
Sheikh Hamad went as far as protecting perpetrators of human
rights violations by issuing his notorious decree no 56/2002,
his press law that curtails the freedom of the press and
exchange of information. The most devastating of all is his
decree offering Bahraini citizenship to citizens of GCC
countries whose number is around 20 million.
There is no faith in the ability of the ruling family to adapt
to the modern norms and policies of civilized societies, and
the Al Khalifa family is now engaged in the most savage of its
programmes, that aims at changing the demographic balance of
Bahrain. We oppose these measures, we oppose the king's
constitution and his decrees that have no legal basis. We call
for real democracy that enables the people to participate in
running their own affairs within a freely-elected parliament
and a contractual constitution. Without these measures, the
winds of change are likely to sweep the ruling clique from the
political scene. | 
