Uprising in Bahrain - Essay Example

?Uprising in Bahrain Middle-East, comprising Western Asian and North African countries, has been one of the strategically important regions of the world, from the political, economic as well as religious perspective. From the political perspective, most of the countries are still continuing as Islamic monarchies, with Islam being the predominant religion in this region. As many of these countries follow a conservative form of Islam, monarchies appear to be a ‘natural’ form of government, with democracy or even republics not practiced widely. Although, few countries hold democratic elections, it is not free and fair most of the times, leading to discontent among specific sections of the population against the monarchies. However, with the regime change successfully happening in Egypt, it is acting as a catalyst for even more pro-democracy and anti-monarchy movements throughout the Middle-East. Bahrain is one of those countries, which has been witnessing anti-monarchy movement or uprising. When the protests in Egypt gained momentum, support for them came wide across the Middle-East. In Bahrain also, a group of individuals gathered in front of the Egyptian embassy to support the Egyptian protestors. In addition, they also wanted more political freedom, equal representation to all people and actualization of democratic practices. Political freedom in the sense, with the Bahraini King nominating the Prime Minister and sizable numbers of parliament representatives, demonstrators wanted more ‘elected’ representatives. Importantly, they wanted equal rights and facilities for all the people, particularly for the majority Shias, as minority Sunni section of the population is playing a dominant role and garnering all the powers and benefits. So, this paper will discuss how the uprising in Bahrain started or happened due to certain social factors, as well as geographical, historical and political factors, and how it effected and is still impacting the Middle Eastern region. Geographical and Historical factors Bahrain is an archipelago in the Persian Gulf, with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran surrounding it. It consists of 33 islands and the largest is the Bahrain Island, which constitutes the majority of the Bahrain’s population. The capital Manama is situated in the northern tip of the island and is the seat of political power, and thus the hotspot of the uprising. Bahrain got evolved geographically as well as historically due to certain events that happened in the 19th and 20th century and those events can also be viewed as an indirect contributing factor to the current uprising. Bahrain existed as a fragmented geographical territory in the 19th century, with various kingdoms. Britain at that time was at the height of its imperialistic tendencies, and it tried to wrest some of the territories. Being a Shia Muslims majority country, Bahrain sought the aid of Iran to counter British imperialism. Although, Iran shielded Bahrain initially, it could not protect it continuously and so British took over Bahrain. Britain brought Bahrain under its protectorate in the Persian Gulf, playing a dominant role in every aspect of Bahrain’s functioning, from appointing its rulers to changing its demographics. Changing of demographics in the sense, British brought in people from Iran, Huwala, as well as India into Bahrain for commercial purposes. “Mixed with the indigenous population ( in Manama) are numerous strangers and settlers, some of whom have been established here for many generations back, attracted from other lands by the profits of either commerce or the pearl fishery” (Gardner 2010, p. 36). Although, these people brought in with them various business skills, and developed Bahrain from a tribal society to a modern one, it started changing the demographics, as there was heightened concentration of people from outside of Bahrain. The same charge of bringing people from other countries and how is affecting the local population is being levelled by the protestors of the current uprising as well. British even caused dissension among the Bahraini people, by creating conflicts between Shias and Sunnis, thereby weakening Bahraini’s opposition to their rule. In addition, British forcibly shifted certain Sunni tribes in Bahrain like al Dassari to Saudi Arabia, so to decrease the concentration of Sunni Muslims, who opposed the British more vehemently. Thus, the issue of changing the demographics happened in the first half of the 20th century, and also forms the crux of the current uprising. On the same lines, Iran’s passing of a bill in its parliament to make Bahrain its Fourteenth province in 1957, in a way laid the ‘seeds’ for the current uprising. When the natural resources of oil was found in Bahrain in 1932, British further strengthened its presence, and importantly took actions against Iran’s tactics to annex Bahrain. Again, British changed the demography of Bahrain, as they indulged in a policy called “deiranisation” by which, the British brought in high number of different Arabs particularly Sunni Arabs (counter Shia influcen) and also other people from the British colonies in Asia and Africa as labourers. (Mojtahedzadeh 1995). This issue was solved under the aegis of UN, which through a opinion poll, restored Bahrain as an independent and sovereign nation, thereby marginalizing any leverage by Britain and Iran. However, the changing of demographics by Britain then seems to be one of the basic reasons for the uprising that is happening now. Social and economic factors Although, the protests started in front of the Egyptian Embassy mainly to support the demonstrators in Tahrir Square in Egypt, key social and economic factors ‘fuelled’ the protests into a mass-scale movement, involving sizable sections of the population. In Bahrain, Shia form the majority, constituting around 70 percent of the population, with the Sunni and other sections comprising the other. Although, they are minority, when compared to Shias, Sunnis dominate the political, economical and social scene in Bahrain. That is, with Bahrain being ruled by the Sunni ruler, King Hamad Al Khalifa, Sunnis are given more prominence in various ‘spheres’, with the majority Shias sidelined. Shia people have often complained of how they are not given employment opportunities particularly in the government sector, and how they are not given free or subsided housing. “Whether it is government jobs or housing, land or basic infrastructure, it gets the leavings, while the regime imports Baluch tribesmen or Syrian policemen to man the security services,” (Financial Times 2011). More than this poor treatment, the action of the Sunni authorities to bring in more Sunni people from Pakistan, Syria, Qatar, Jordan and other Asian and African countries, thereby changing the demography of Bahrain, has evoked even more anger and protests. That is, the Bahraini government are reportedly importing Sunnis from the above mentioned countries and are placing them in key posts to further extend Sunni’s domination, and also to increase the percentage of Sunni people among the Bahrain’s population. “Opposition activists estimate that up to half of Bahrain’s national security apparatus (including in the armed force and police) is made up of Sunnis from Jordan, Yemen and Pakistan. (Imtiaz 2011). This unequal treatment by the ruling powers has led has to strong disapproval and anger among the Shias, leading to the current uprising. “They strongly object to government policies that give citizenship and jobs to Sunnis from other Arab countries and South Asia as a way to put an end to the Shiites' demographic edge. With these moves, the regime has bred resentment and anger among the majority population. (Fernandez 2011). Although, the uprising is to mainly bring about reforms in the ruling set-up, the undertone is mainly a sectarian issue. “A Pakistani resident in Manama, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the protests were mainly a sectarian issue. Pakistanis are being targeted because they are Sunni.” (Imtiaz 2011). To get equal treatment, the protestors opine that equal political representation has to be actualized, thereby giving Shias more power. For that to happen, the current monarchy under King Hamad has to go because he does not favour apt power-sharing with the Shias, as he gives majority of the cabinet posts in the Bahraini government to his family and other fellow Sunnis, allocating only minimum seats to the Shias. Even the Prime Minister is a handpicked one, with King Hamad’s uncle only holding on to that position for the last 40 years. “He appoints the cabinet (11 of 23 ministers are from the ruling family); gerrymandering means the Shia opposition can elect only 18 of 40 MPs...His uncle, Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa, has been prime minister since independence in 1971. Power-sharing this is not.” (Financial Times 2011). The protestors are of the view that the current ruling class may not do any constructive things for them, and so they want a change in guard. “Many of the protesters were demanding a constitutional monarchy instead of the existing system where citizens vote for a mostly toothless parliament and policy remains the preserve of elite centred on the al-Khalifa dynasty.”(Richter 2011). Thus the skewed representation to the majority Shia population, lack of benefits to them and the influx of Sunni people from other countries have caused a lot of concern as well as resentment among the sizable sections of the population, leading to the current uprising. Strategy of the actors - Protestors As pointed out above, it all begin when hundreds of Bahrainis assembled in front of the Egyptian embassy in Manama on February 4, 2011, to express their solidarity with the anti-Mubarak protesters in Egypt. With mass movement against the long standing and authoritarian Hosni Mubarak’s regime gaining momentum in Egypt, people all over the conducted support rallies in their own countries. This practice also spread to the non-democratic Middle-Eastern countries, with people participating in sizable numbers to support that struggle, and also an extension of their wish to see reforms in their own country. That is, although in Bahrain, the demonstration was carried out to support the Egyptian campaigners, it had a subtext of local issues. Malas, Hafidh and Millman (2011) stated that “…hundreds of Bahrainis gathered in front of the Egyptian Embassy…in a rally organized in solidarity with Egypt's pro-democracy movement but that also lent a voice to Bahrain's own opposition”. After that protest in front of the embassy, the local issue of equal treatment of all people, release of political prisoners and government reforms came into prominence, when the key actors of the pro-change movement initiated their first action on February 14, 2011. They called upon the Bahrainis particularly the ones affected by the current regime of King Hamad to flood the streets of Manama and other places, and conduct demonstrations against the regime. The demonstrators wanted to rewrite the monarchy based constitution. They wanted to establish an government setup with a “full popular mandate to investigate and hold to account economic, political and social violations, including stolen public wealth, political naturalisation, arrests, torture and other oppressive security measures, institutional and economic corruption.” (Eurasia Review 2011). Thus, it was clear that the uprising in Bahrain begin as an anti-establishment movement to correct the unfair and authoritarian treatment towards the majority sections of the population. As part of the street march, the protestors started to gather and hold forte around the Pearl Roundabout, a key landmark in Manama. They even put up tents and started staying day and night at that Pearl Roundabout, thereby trying to copy the scenario that was visible at the Tahrir Square in Cairo, during the Egypt's revolts. By February 16, the number of protesters swelled to thousands in and around the Pearl Roundabout, all wanting reforms in the government’s functioning. When the protest street march started on February 14 throughout Bahrain, unlike Manama, there were clashes between the protestors and the security forces in many Shia dominated villages, with many people being killed and injured. This gave the rallying point for the protestors at the Pearl Roundabout, with more people joining in, including the party which won the largest number of seats in the 2006 parliamentary elections. Al Wefaq National Islamic Society, which won 18 out of 40 in the 2006 elections, officially made themselves part of the protests, providing the political weight to the mass movement. Till that time, the main demand of the protestors were political reforms and equal treatment for the Shia majority, however, when the Bahrain forces violently attacked the people camping at the Pearl Roundabout, there was a change of strategy. With high number of people joining the protestors at the Pearl, there was a view that it could become a mass movement, and which could bring down the regime. So, King Hamad declared marital law and state of emergency, and ordered the Bahraini forces to violently confront the protestors at the Pearl Roundabout. This resulted in the killing of around five people and injuring over 200 people. Although, it was reported that the protestors reacted calmly to the movement of the forces towards them, the Bahraini forces acted aggressively using a whole range of weapons from helicopters, tanks to machine guns. “When we saw the tanks and the cars, about a hundred of us went towards them, and started chanting, 'Peacefully! Peacefully!' This is when they started shooting, from the ground and from the bridge, from everywhere.” (Fernandez 2011). They also brought down the Pearl Roundabout, which was considered the symbol of the anti-establishment movement and the uprising. Although, many thought, that this crack down and the demolishment will negatively impact the psyche of the protestors, the protestors themselves opined that just by bringing down a structure, their movement cannot be derailed. “I think it's a stupid act from the authorities that they think by removing this it will be removed from history," said Khalil Al Marzooq, a leading member of the Wefaq party. (Lakhani 2011). This attack was severely condemned by the international community, but the regime did not offer any apology. So, the protestors changed the strategy and put the call for the complete overthrowing of the King Hamad regime and thereby monarchy in Bahrain. There was “escalation of protesters' initial demands for the Sunni monarchy's hold on top government posts to be diluted, and for discrimination by the Shia majority to be addressed. The mood, however, appears to have turned towards defiance of the entire ruling system after the attack.” (guardian.co.uk 2011). Although the protestors’ confidence got dented because of the attack, with the change in strategy, they continued their protests against other key ‘sections’ of the Bahraini regime. On March 6, sizable number of protesters started their march from the destroyed Pearl Roundabout towards the Prime minister's office, asking him to step down. “Thousands of demonstrators marched from Pearl Square to a former office of Prime Minister Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa on Saturday in a new tactic to press demands for the removal of the man who had held his post for 40 years.” (Richter 2011). That is, his continuous reign for 40 years without any democratic validation is being viewed by the protestors as gross misuse of political power, bestowed on the ruling family. As further re-tuning of the strategy, the major Shiite groups, Al Haq, Wafa and the Freedom movement formed a coalition called Coalition for a Bahraini Republic to fight more optimally for the abolishment of monarchy and the actualization of republic. All these parties wanted to work in cohesion and direct all their resources towards that goal. “This tripartite coalition adopts the choice of bringing down the existing regime in Bahrain and establishing a democratic republican system," Haq leader Hassan Mushaimaa told reporters at Pearl roundabout, where protesters are camped out.” (Noueihed 2011). Although, the protestors came up with different strategies to take the uprising to the ‘logical’ end, the intensity started to subside, with the government coming up with counter-strategies. Strategy of the actors - Government The government of King Hamad thought that the protestors only had the agenda of solidarity with the Egyptian protestors, and so they gave the permission. However, they did not anticipated that the protest would evolve into anti-establishment one in short time. Thus, the government had no strategy in place to stop the movement in its ‘infancy’ and had to come up with strategies to counter it, after the movement had already started gaining acceptance. When the uprising was gathering momentum in February, the government for their part ‘organized’ or even facilitated counter protests by involving the pro-monarchy supporters. On February 21, government controlled Bahrain News Agency reported that, as many as 300,000 people took part in the massive rally at the Al Fateh Mosque (Grand Mosque), Juffair, to support the ruling monarchy, calling for national unity. (Bahrain News Agency 2011). One of the key demands of the protestors in the early stage of protests is the release of 400 odd political prisoners, who were accused of anti-government activities and held in Bahraini Jails. So to appease the protestors, King Hamad signed an order to release around 300 of those political prisoners. To further show that it cares for all the sections of the people including the Shias, the government announced the cancellation of 25 percent of the housing loans, it has given to its citizens including Shias. One of the main grouses of the Shias was that, they were not provided adequate infrastructural facilities or even financial assistance for that, and so the government through this decision wanted to assuage their grievances. In addition, the King also removed several ministers in the cabinet, with dubious record, in order to show that he favours good administration. However, removal of certain ministers was never demanded by the protestors, and so these strategies never made impact on the minds of the protestors. They only accused the government of diverting from the core issue of political reforms and apt power sharing. When the government understood that these strategies were not working, they went a step ahead and imposed the state of emergency as well as declared Martial law, giving the free-hand for the Bahraini army. Also, fearing that his regime may be dislodged and all the key national assets taken over by the protestors, King Hamad requested troops from the Gulf Cooperation Council to protect its national assets. With martial law and the GCC forces in place, the government launched its controversial but effective strategy of cracking down on the protesters at the Pearl Roundabout. As pointed out above, the security forces used range of armouries including tanks, helicopters, tear gas as well as live ammunition with the intention to disperse the protesters. The protestors for their part responded with makeshift petrol bombs. In addition, the government also brought down the symbolic monument at Pearl Square, giving a dubious reason of doing it to improve traffic. The government stated that it was done “out of the government's keenness to optimize services and improve the infrastructure…boost flow of traffic in this vital area of the capital,” (Bahrain News Agency 2011). Importantly, the government made the first public comment on March 17 on the issue, with the foreign minister, Khalid al-Khalifa justifying the crackdown. He stated that it was necessary to do in order to prevent the demonstrators from “polarising the country” and pushing Bahrain into the “brink of the sectarian abyss”. (Bahrain News Agency 2011). He also added that, violence and the resultant deaths were regrettable, and the forces launched the operations to clear the Pearl Square at 3am mainly “to minimise any possibility of casualties”, as there will not be high number of protestors at that time. (Bahrain News Agency 2011). In addition, the government also arrested dozens of opposition leaders, including Hassan Mushaima of the Haq Movement and Ibrahim Sharif, the leader of the Waad Society. (Fernandez 2011). With the wave of pro-democracy protests subsiding now, the government has started adopting a more conciliatory tone or strategy, assuring that reforms will be carried out. No major protest marches were carried out in the recent past and so the government is projecting that stability has returned. Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, the Crown Prince, is now being viewed as the moderate and who can be trusted to deliver, by the protestors. Sheikh Salman for his part assured that lessons have been learnt and reforms will be carried out, keeping in mind all the sections of the people including the Shias. “Bahrain's crown prince, widely seen as a moderate, said in a statement he was committed to the reform path and said the Gulf state would listen to both domestic and international concerns.” (Golovnina 2011). As a continuation of return to normalcy, the government is planning to lift the state of Emergency by June first week. “It plans to lift a state of emergency next week…now hopes for a return to normalcy on June 1.” (Golovnina 2011). Impact on the Middle-East Although, the uprising in Bahrain was a local one, the cause for it, as well as, its ramification crosses its borders. That is, as discussed above, certain historical events involving the other Middle Eastern countries were the ‘seeding’ for the current uprising. Starting from Iran’s influence in Bahrain in the 20th century to the current role of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the uprising got started or even got accentuated due to the role of other Middle Eastern countries. From early times, Iran always supported Shias in Bahrain, while the government brought in Sunni Muslims particularly militarily trained men from Pakistan. Saudi Arabia for their part always financially and militarily supported Bahrain. “Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain in 1994 to strengthen al-Khalifa's dynasty during the previous period of mass demonstrations against its autocratic rule. For years, the Saudis have propped up the Bahraini regime by providing free oil and funding its budget.” (Fernandez 2011). So, when the uprising began, all these countries and others in the Middle-East were impacted by it, and each one responded in various manners. One of the main impacts of the Bahrain’s uprising in Middle East is that, it awakened the consciousness of the Shia population and more importantly all sections of the people against the monarchy rule for many years. Middle East has always been known for the dominance of monarchies, as many countries are ruled by Kings continuously, with no or only limited democratic practices. Although, people have accepted this form of governance for many years because of the heightened economic activities and other religious factors, the Egyptian regime change acted as the catalyst, and so people in many countries are initiating campaigns for more democratization. Thus, the Bahrain uprising also impacted people in many countries particularly in neighbouring Saudi Arabia. Saudi people particularly Shiites became quite aware of the happenings in Bahrain and even launched campaigns in support of the uprising and against Saudi involvement in Bahrain. The campaigns mainly happened in the Shia majority cities of Qatif, Sawfa, Seehat, Tarut, and Awamiya “The Eastern Province, bordering Bahrain where Saudi Arabia has sent 1,000 troops to help quell unrest, there have been protests from the minority Shia Muslim population.” (bdtodaynews.com 2011). Although, Saudi Arabia has one of the strong monarchies in the Middle-East, they feared that if these movements for democracy are allowed to expand in Bahrain, the Saudi people will also join the bandwagon and demand the same in Saudi Arabia as well. “If there were free elections in Saudi Arabia, 99 percent of the people would vote against the regime and that is why they are scared of the little wisp of democracy on a tiny island in the Persian Gulf,” (Shakespeare qtd. in Imitiaz 2011). They particularly feared that the Shia people in Saudi Arabia will also protest and could even voice similar demands of end of monarchy and rise of democracy and power sharing. So, to dampen dissent and protest among the Shiites in Eastern province, the Saudi government even provided around $37 billion to the people in the form of citizen benefits. However, the main step Saudi Arabia along with other Middle Eastern countries took to prevent any democratic campaigns in their countries and also to support the Sunni Monarchy in Bahrain is the sending of its troops into Bahrain. As pointed out above, the Middle Eastern countries of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates under the aegis of Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC), which is actually a six-nation regional grouping including Bahrain, sent troops into Bahrain. When the uprising gathered momentum and there was chance of the protestors capturing key national assets or infrastructures particularly the oil and gas installations and financial institutions, King Hamad requested the GCC to send the troops to guard and protect those assets. Thus, more than 1,000 Saudi soldiers entered the country to help in crushing the protest movement, and also five hundred policemen from the United Arab Emirates did the same. (Imitiaz 2011). The other Middle Eastern country which sent the troops and thereby getting impacted by the protests is Qatar. Although, Qatar always tried to maintain neutral stance in any internal conflicts, it sent the troops as part of GCC. “Surprisingly, Qatar -- a country that has achieved an international prestige thanks to its independent foreign policies -- announced its preparedness to send more soldiers to support its neighborhood regime.” (Imitiaz 2011). Thus, many countries in the Middle-East got impacted by the uprising in Bahrain and they all responded to it as well. References Bahrain News Agency 2011, Massive show of support!, viewed on May 25, 2011 http://www.bna.bh/portal/en/news/447936 bdtodaynews.com, Small Saudi protest outside interior ministry in Riyadh, viewed on May 25, 2011 http://www.en.bdtodaynews.com/2011/03/21/small-saudi-protest-outside-interior-ministry-in-riyadh/ Eurasia Review 2011, America Blows It On Bahrain, viewed on May 25, 2011 http://www.eurasiareview.com/america-blows-it-on-bahrain-03032011/ Financial Times 2011, Bahrain gets tough, viewed on May 25, 2011 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/62ff2670-3ac7-11e0-9c1a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1NSXJHXUi Fernandez, Y 2011, Saudis want to hijack Bahraini freedom, viewed on May 25, 2011 http://www.presstv.ir/detail/170751.html Gardner, A 2010, City of Strangers: Gulf Migration and the Indian Community in Bahrain, Cornell University Press Golovnina, M 2011, Bahrain's crown prince says committed to reforms, viewed on May 25, 2011 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/25/bahrain-reforms-idUSLDE74O2CP20110525 guardian.co.uk 2011, Bahrain mourners call for end to monarchy, viewed on May 25, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/18/bahrain-mourners-call-downnfall-monarchy Imtiaz, S 2011, Pakistani workers seek cover amid Bahrain turmoil, viewed on May 25, 2011 http://tribune.com.pk/story/133526/pakistani-workers-seek-cover-amid-bahrain-turmoil/ Lakhani, L 2011, U.S. condemns arrest of opposition figures in Bahrain, viewed on May 25, 2011 http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/18/bahrain.protests/?hpt=T2 Malas, N., Hafidh, H and Millman, J 2011, Protests Emerge in Jordan, Bahrain , viewed on May 25, 2011 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704709304576124623383327338.html Mojtahedzadeh, P 1995, Bahrain: the land of political movements, Rahavard, a Persian Journal of Iranian Studies, CA, USA, Vol.11, NO.39 Noueihed, L 2011, Hardline Shiite groups demand republic in Bahrain, viewed on May 25, 2011 http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=4402091&sponsor= Richter, F 2011, Shi'ite dissident returns to Bahrain from exile, viewed on May 25, 2011 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/26/us-bahrain-government-idUSTRE71P1A720110226 Read More