A Parliament Without Opposition

A parliament without opposition: coming to a Bahrain near you. Last night at its weekly rally in Bu Quwah, al-Wifaq reaffirmed its earlier decision taken back in May to stay out of the planned Sept. 24 by-elections, which we covered extensively here. Contrary to the implication of most of today's coverage of this story, then, the real "news" here is not the boycott itself but the failure of (the presumed) behind-the-scenes talks ongoing between al-Wifaq and members of the Al Khalifa aimed, among other things, at bringing the group back to the elections.

Moreover, since the only other opposition society with any real following or hope of winning a seat in the 18 vacant districts--Wa'ad--also announced its decision to boycott a few days ago, the result is almost assuredly an elected parliament composed entirely of Sunni Islamic parties and pro-government "independents" mostly of tribal affiliation. Welcome to 2002-2006.

Word from the rally is that al-Wifaq declared the current parliament altogether invalid; said it will "return to the street [protests] to put pressure on the regime for real reform"; and called for a constitutional assembly or popular referendum on a new constitution.

Speaking afterward with Bloomberg News, Khalil al-Marzuq explained,

"We do not want to participate in an election when the government has no intention of working with us,” Khalil al-Marzooq said in a telephone interview. “All of the revolutions we’ve seen in the Middle East were held by ordinary people, not by parliamentarians. We will still fight for equal rights for the people of Bahrain.” election is final. “We need to see some real political amendments,” he said. ...

Al-Marzooq said the decision to boycott the election is final. “We need to see some real political amendments,” he said.

BBC Arabic did an extended segment on the decision, including video from the Friday rally and an interview with (former) al-Wifaq MP 'Ali al-Aswad.



Also worth watching in this regard is the Friday sermon of Sh. 'Isa Qasim titled "How Great is the Scandal of Politics in Bahrain," which paves the way for a boycott.



At this point it should be unnecessary to revisit once again the actual reasons for the boycott. In short, it is the same reason al-Wifaq pulled out of the National Dialogue talks: it demands for "reform" are not some nebulous desire for "change" Obama-style but actually correspond to specific procedural and institutional revisions, namely electoral redistricting to get away from Bahrain's ethnically-gerrymandered districts; election rather than appointment of government ministers, including the prime minister; and empowerment of the parliament such that it has actual lawmaking abilities, as opposed to its current fake lawmaking abilities. Thus the current parliament and electoral scheme represents the very things the opposition most wants to change, so participation now in the very system it seeks to end would be self-defeating.

For a more substantive illustration of the problems associated with the current system, consider this anecdote given in an interview I conducted back in 2009 with a leading member of one of Bahrain's political societies:

We ... attempted to do a study of the actual voters assigned to each district and found that 1/3 we could not locate as living within the region. The way it works is that the government posts the list of names for each district in that district’s polling center (e.g., at a school, etc.) and there are only names and CPR number, from which you can gather the year of birth since the first two numbers of the CPR number are the last two digits of the person’s year of birth. However, you are not allowed to take photos of the names, so if you wanted to check to make sure that all the names were actually people who lived in your district, you have to copy them one by one by hand. And the government only allows a 1 week period in which to contest names of voters in your district, so it is actually impossible to know whether the people assigned to your district actually lives there, and to know who is actually voting or where the votes come from.

So not only are the districts themselves gerrymandered such as to limit the ability of opposition societies to win seats, but the registered voters in your district may or may not actually exist at all. Sounds like a process you'd really want to be part of, right?

The official reaction to al-Wifaq's announcement has differed little from the response to its pull-out from the National Dialogue. Speaking with the Bahrain News Agency, Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs Sh. Khalid bin 'Ali said:

Those who boycott the upcoming parliament by-elections will have to bear the consequences of their decision. ...

He urged everyone to take part in the elections, saying Bahrain is seeking institutional and consensual work through the legislature. ...

And then the best line:

He said there is not a single expert who recommends boycott of elections, considering participation as the ideal way to build trust and achieve progress.

Ha! Where are all these election participation experts? I would be interested in meeting one.

In fact, then, his comments seem to be a combination of a threat--this is the same minister after all that attempted to ban al-Wifaq altogether back in April; and that succeeded in shutting down Wa'ad, at least long enough to prosecute Ebrahim Sharif--and a strange appeal to public opinion.

As represented by Al-Watan, the Royal Court, on the other hand, seems to be taking a more subtle tact: screw al-Wifaq, they say, but for God's sake Wa'ad needs to participate, presumably to avoid the realization of the title of this article--a parliament without opposition. The "screw al-Wifaq" line has enough representatives: Yusif Al Bin Khalil, for example:


The more nuanced argument, though, if you can call it that, we find in al-Zayani's column, which takes the form of a sardonic letter to al-Wifaq but ends with the following:

[Al-Wifaq,] You’d better stop your hypocrisy and your hypocritical speeches. Waad, we beg you not to boycott the complimentary elections lest they will be paralyzed! Whenever Al Wefaq boycotts the elections, you follow suite. You behave like puppets that spin within Wefaq’s sphere. Anyway, you have missed a golden opportunity to win a parliament seat due to your blind obedience to Al Wefaq. Finally, we beg your pardon again not to boycott the elections. Otherwise, Bahrain will be paralyzed!

So Wa'ad is urged to take part lest it lose out on its grand prize of "a parliament seat." If al-Wifaq was unable over five years to effect serious change with 17 and then 18 of 40 seats, somehow I doubt Wa'ad will be convinced of its chances with 1. As for the other reason it should agree to take part--to avoid "paralyzing" the parliament and electoral process--I think the irony there is clear enough.

The ultimate question, however, is what al-Wifaq's boycott confirmation implies about the progress (or existence) of behind-the-scenes talks between it and the moderate factions within the Al Khalifa that most assume are or were ongoing. About this I had a lengthy debate with several commenters on yesterday's post.

My initial reaction was that the boycott cannot bode well for the progress of high-level talks, since al-Wifaq has relatively little to give the government now that it has announced its decision publicly. This assumes that al-Wifaq cannot on its own put a stop to the continuing daily street protests, which are organized independently by such groups as the Feb. 14 Movement and so on.

The other question, of course, is whether the moderate Al Khalifa factions led by the king and crown prince are even in a position to offer anything substantive to al-Wifaq, whether redistricting, changes to the way ministers are chosen, etc. This is especially so after the outcome of the National Dialogue, whose main upshot was to give the prime minister power of the selection of ministers. Any concession to al-Wifaq on this point from the king would generate a ton of blow back not only from the prime minister and his allies within the ruling family but from the National Unity Gathering and like-minded people.

Indeed, there are already disturbing reports of pro-government "militias" being formed to battle street protesters. The following video, for example, is some sort of promotional video for the "Faruq Militia," whose members are going around and spray-painting over anti-regime graffiti in the Shi'i village of Karzakan. It features nice martial music with gunshots in the background and bears the subtitle "Sunni Black [Ops?] Storm the Shi'i Village of Karzakan, Allowing the Abuses [of Shi'a] but Correcting Some of the Slogans!!" So this is a heartening development..



Related to all this, finally, is the ongoing BICI investigation, more specifically the recent statements of Bassiouni that seem to presuppose the outcome of his inquiry some weeks in advance: that "there was never a policy of excessive use of force or torture...that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I think it was a case of people at the lower level acting, and there not being an effective chain of communication, control."

The backlash that ensued from this premature suggestion that no high-level decision-makers need or will be held accountable prompted a statement from the BICI to the effect that it "has not reached any final conclusions. Its work continues to be independent and free from any interference, either by the government of Bahrain, any other government, or any interest group, either within or outside of Bahrain." Even so, the resignation soon after of several staff along with the group's Secretary General, Kamran Chaudhary, for "personal reasons," raised even more doubts about the chances the commission's findings will leave Bahrainis with the feeling that justice has indeed been done and that society can now begin to put the episode behind it (if such a thing were ever possible).

So how does this relate to al-Wifaq's electoral boycott? It is related because one of the (perhaps naive) hopes surrounding the BICI is that it might work to improve the internal position of the more moderate sections of the Al Khalifa by publicly identifying and shaming those high-ranking officials most responsible for the post-February crackdown. It was, after all, King Hamad himself who took the lead in calling for an independent commission staffed by non-Bahrainis. (The original commission, I was told by someone who knows, was proposed as a Bahraini-only group.) As it seems that this is now very unlikely to happen, the internal ruling family splits remain deep and as intractable as ever, and the window for a possible political agreement with the opposition, in turn, remains slim.

Update: related to the issue of private militias, the Bahrain Mirror is running a popular story titled "Arms, Not the People, are the Basis of Authority" (a riff on al-Wifaq's rally slogan) about supposed secret weapons caches in Jurdab, 'Adliyah, and on the prime minister's personal island of Jiddah said to be part of a parallel military force led by the prime minister and the defense minister to compete directly with the one loyal to the king. I can make no claim to know whether this is entirely true or entirely fabricated, but it makes a good read anyway.

Bahrain Pro-Governments to Deploy London Shield Force

For many Bahraini supporters of the post-February 14 crackdown, what is said about karma is proving once again to be true. Having endured months of criticism for excessive force in dealing with a disgruntled segment of society claiming economic and political exclusion, they have wasted no time in returning the favor in kind to a U.K. government that was perhaps the most outspoken in its condemnation of Bahrain.

Several stories in recent days have highlighted the jeers of various countries usually on the receiving end of human rights critiques, including China, Libya, and Iran. An article in The Atlantic, for example, offers the headline: "For Iran, Libya, and China, U.K. Rioting Is a Time to Taunt." And likewise in The Washington Post: "London riots used by Iran, Bahrain to justify government crackdowns." Being mostly interested in Bahrain--though I am certainly not adverse to a good Ahmadinejad quote--I found that the latter story, despite its headline, is actually short on details about the overall reaction in Bahrain, quoting a few lines from a GDN op-ed.

So I thought that, especially given the unlimited potential of the new Al-Watan English site, there must be a treasure trove of good material to pick from here. And I was not disappointed.


First, we may look at the op-ed referenced in the Washington Post piece, which is titled snarkily: "'Arab Spring' has finally sprung ... in London!" It says in part:

The hallmarks of everyone's favourite uprising were there for all to see as, sparked by the shooting of a civilian by police, the downtrodden masses took to the streets to challenge the British regime.

Cars and buildings have been torched, innocent people and police have been attacked, roads have been barricaded and the capital is like a battleground.

Rioters are using modern technology such as Blackberry and Twitter to mobilise, just as they did in Bahrain, and video footage is being posted on YouTube. ...

And while they would not condone what is happening in London, there are more than a few who would argue that Britain got what was coming following its criticism of Bahrain and the antics of its media.

The irony is that if the UK hadn't been so occupied fraternising with the political opposition in Bahrain, co-managing a coup in Libya, retreating from its misadventures in Iraq and playing hide and seek with the Taliban in Afghanistan - all at a time when the country's national debt is higher than ever - then it might have realised all was not well in its own backyard.

The fact is that people in the UK have legitimate reasons to be angry.

Etc. etc. If the U.K. is justified in attacking its protesters why aren't we justified in attacking ours? Why should a double-standard be employed against Bahrain simply because its uprising and response happen to be qualitatively different from the situation in London? Straightforward enough, right?


Even better is the report of a meeting with the Bahraini FM Sh. Khalid, who took some time out his rigorous Qatar- and Al-Jazeera-bashing schedule to meet with the British Ambassador to express his solidarity with the U.K.'s efforts to stamp out its own Shi'a-led uprising. Oh, they aren't Shi'a? Well, anyway. The GDN summary of the meeting begins:

Bahrain yesterday firmly backed Britain in its efforts to confront street violence. Foreign Minister Shaikh Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa told the UK's new ambassador to Bahrain Iain Lindsay that "freedom of expression should not mean insults or offending any leadership or government in the public media." ...

Meanwhile, a major Bahraini political movement has criticised the British government's crackdown on rioters.

The National Unity Assembly also called for an urgent investigation into unrest in London and other cities.

"We now ask the British government to investigate what is forcing their citizens to riot on the streets," secretary-general Abdulla Saad Al Howaihi told the GDN yesterday.

"They (rioters) should be given a chance to air their views and speak out. This is exactly what they (the UK) told us."

So now it's the Bahraini government playing the role of the steadfast and understanding ally while the National Unity Gathering criticizes the British for its crackdown. For the record, then, that's: crackdown in Bahrain, good; crackdown in Syria or Britain: bad. I guess the presumption is that most of the London protesters are Sunna. Really, it's too bad that the British, Syrian, and Qatari (to say nothing of the American) Embassies are so far apart, or else the National Unity Gathering people could hit them all in one giant demonstration procession. One hopes that its followers are in good shape.

Last but not least, of course, are our friends at Al-Watan English. Will they disappoint? Of course not! At least not with Hesham al-Zayani (from the same family as the GCC Military Chief, no less) on the watch!


In true American evangelical Christian fashion, al-Zayani writes that "what [is happening] in London looks like [a] sett[l]ing of scores, a divine response to England's attitude towards agitations that recently occurred around." Hrm, I wonder where this "around" is? He continues on to refer to everyone arrested as "political prisoners," and asks:

London is trying to block the social networks “Twitter” and “Facebook”. You, who boast to be defending freedom, aren’t you cloning what happened in Tunisia and Egypt? You are Xeroxing the same experience that happened there and you don’t preach what you teach. London arrests an 11-year–old boy, the youngest political prisoner.

Aren’t you witnessing what the English police are doing when it comes to security and to law enforcement? Aren’t you racist when you shot the black young man dead? Aren’t you also racist against minorities when you target the black and the Turkish?

Anyway, you can read the rest for yourself. And if there are other good stories along this line that I missed feel free to send them along.

Wouldn't you love it, though, if the British Foreign Ministry released a statement criticizing last night's deployment of tanks and armored vehicles to block demonstrators from the February 14th Movement from reaching the Pearl Roundabout?

Update: In yet another attempt to draw parallels to the Bahraini case, Al-Ayam is running a Reuters story (Arabic) on Qaddafi's response to the riots: "Libya: Cameron Employs Mercenaries from Scotland and Ireland to Put down the Riot." Just wait until they find out about the Gurkhas.

Update 2: As some sort of make-up for the "Shouting in the Dark" documentary, Al-Jazeera English aired a 30-minute debate last night touching on the February uprising and crackdown, the National Dialogue, and the BICI. It featured Shura Council Deputy Chairman Jamal Fakhru representing the government position. The video is below:



And if you were looking for a London riots taunt mixed with a reference to Plato's Republic, who else but Al-Watan could deliver? Faisal al-Shaykh's new column:


Update 3: So much for the supposed dialogue between senior members of the Al Khalifa and al-Wifaq. The latter reaffirmed its boycott of the by-elections at its rally today in Bu Quwah as well as "a return to the street [protests] to put pressure on the regime for real reform." Or in the words of former MP Jasim Hussain: al-Wifaq "declares existing parliament is void, not reflecting popular views, calls for [constitutional] assembly or referendum." Bloomberg has more.

Interview with the Bahrain Mirror

A few weeks ago a writer with the Bahrain Mirror--an electronic newspaper that has become a refuge for journalists after the temporary closure of Al-Wasat and the crackdown more generally--called to ask for an interview to discuss the blog and especially my survey project in Bahrain.

The story is now up (in Arabic of course).

Why Didn't We Think of This Before?: A Pro-Government Shi'a Party!

The Bahraini government would seem to be so pleased with the favorable outcome (from its perspective) of the National Dialogue that it is taking the principle to the next level. If the main lesson there was that you can effectively fight dialogue with more dialogue--that is, drown out the voices of the actual political opposition by inviting everyone and his cousin to the discussion table--then why not extend this notion to Bahrain's wider political arena? Well, why not?

The Washington Times, which seems for some reason to have the inside scoop on all the pro-government news stories coming out of Bahrain, is reporting that well-known pro-government Shi'i cleric Sh. Muhsin Al 'Asfour has announced (from "his home in the affluent village of Saar"; wait, what??) the creation of a new political society to cater exclusively to pro-government Shi'a, one that aims effectively to fracture Bahraini Shi'a more systematically into pro-government and anti-government camps. Though he has not revealed too many details as yet, including the name of the new society, he says it does plan to run candidates in "selected constituencies" in the upcoming by-elections, i.e. in the wealthier Shi'a-populated districts (around 'Isa Town maybe?).

Al 'Asfour also has some rather nasty things to say about al-Wifaq and especially about 'Ali Salman:

"The question is what would happen if Wefaq came to power, especially acting on a foreign agenda,” he said, echoing government allegations of the party’s ties to Iran.

“The answer is that we would end up somewhere along the lines of Lebanon. Bahrain would enter into a dark phase.”

Sheik al-Asfoor called Wefaq’s leader, Ali Salman, a religious lightweight.

“He went to Qom [the Iranian holy city] for seven years and worked as an office boy. He was regarded as a joke there,” Sheik al-Asfoor claimed.

“He wears the turban in Bahrain, but he used to wear pants and a shirt. He’s garbage.”

"Garbage?" Ouch!

While Sh. 'Ali Salman is indeed no religious "heavyweight," Al 'Asfour's critique of Salman is a bit of a cop-out, since as he knows the de facto religious leader of al-Wifaq is not he but Sh. 'Isa Qasim. And, as the following Wikileaks cable makes plain, there he is quite over-matched. A cable from August 2008 (also here) evidently written by David Letterman reports the "Top Ten Shi'a Clerics in Bahrain," sorting them in terms of "Rank," "Influence," and "Scholarship," where closer to 1 is higher. This list is as follows:

1. Sh. 'Isa Qasim (1, 1, 1)
2. Sh. Hussein Najati (2, 2, 3) -- since stripped of his citizenship
3. Sh. Muhammad Sanad (3, 10, 2)
4. Sh. 'Abd al-Jalil al-Miqdad (4, 6, 4) -- serving a life sentence
5. Sh. 'Abd al-Hussain al-Sitri (5, 7, 7)
6. S. Jawad al-Wada'i (6, 3, 9)
7. Sh. Hamid al-Mubarak (7, 8, 5)
8. S. 'Abdallah al-Ghurayfi (8, 5, 8)
9. Sh. Ahmad Al 'Asfour (9, 4, 10)
10. Sh. Muhsin Al 'Asfour (10, 9, 6)

Not only does Muhsin Al 'Asfour thus sit at the bottom of Bahrain's Shi'i clerical hierarchy (though I guess he's bumped up a few spots now by default as others are deported and jailed), but his "Influence" rating is a mere 9. Further, the description of him (which might by now be out of date) is equally unflattering:


So, he is a pro-government cleric whose little influence comes from his family name and is widely perceived as being corrupt or at least economically (and politically) opportunistic. Al-Wifaq would seem then not to have so much to worry about. As Toby Jones is quoted as saying in the Washington Times piece, "a party led by Sheik al-Asfoor [sic] would be lucky to get one or two seats and would be more likely to take votes away from pro-government Sunni candidates than from opposition Shiite ones."

Still, the move is a clever one, as it puts more pressure on al-Wifaq (and perhaps on Wa'ad as well, which has also just decided to boycott) to take part in the upcoming by-elections, for fear--unrealistic or not--that its support may be undercut by a new competitor fishing explicitly for Shi'a votes. Well played, Bahraini government!

While we are on the topic of new Bahraini political societies, we cannot help but mention the new London-based Bahrain Justice and Development Movement--the Turks called, and they want their party name back--begun by the excommunicated members of al-Wifaq who've set up shop in London, including former MPs 'Ali al-Aswad, Jasim Hussain, and Muhammad al-Mizal. The aim seems to be a more serious and less bombastic alternative to the other London-based opposition movements, the Bahrain Freedom Movement and Khalas.


As implied above, this goes far in explaining the recent revocation of al-Wifaq membership of individuals outside the country. Their website (which is already blocked inside Bahrain) says that the group "was created just one month ago." So the timing makes sense.

Finally, we may point out that the Qataris seem to have caved to the Bahraini pressure about the powerful documentary "Shouting in the Dark," which was slated to be re-aired this week on Thursday and Friday. The New York Times is reporting, however, that "Al Jazeera English has squashed several planned rebroadcasts":

The decision this week to halt the repeats raised concerns among Al Jazeera’s staff members that the channel was succumbing to political or diplomatic pressure from Bahrain and its ally Saudi Arabia.

Indeed, I was just at a public showing of the other recent Al-Jazeera English documentary--part of the "Fault Lines" series--and those present from Al-Jazeera insisted that political pressure from the Bahrainis would not alter the network's behavior. At least we can all take comfort in the inevitability of the Barbara Streisand effect in this case.

Oh, and by the way the U.S. also signed a five-year extension to its defense pact with the Bahrainis through 2016. Of course they did.

Update: a reader points to a Bahrain Mirror article with new information about the long-rumored Bahraini government-produced documentary said to be in the works and obviously meant as a counterpoint to the "fabrications" of the Western (and Qatari) media. It is reportedly to be produced by an unnamed "Spanish company." One can hardly wait.

Also, al-Wifaq's weekly rally #9 will take place Friday "between al-Sahla and Bu Quwah," wherever that is supposed to be. The flier is once again a disappointment. It's like they're not even trying anymore.


Update 2: I forgot to check Al-Watan English before I posted this. I almost missed out on this astute article from Yusif Al Bin Khalil, who asks what everyone is wondering: "Why is Qatar against Bahrain?"

Update 3: the February 14 are, as always, spurning al-Wifaq and holding a rally of their own. It is scheduled for Friday night in Sanabis, but the flier asks, "Do you want to return to Martyrs' Square?," which is interesting because the U.S. Embassy demonstration notice notes that "On Thursday, August 11th, there will be a march to the GCC Roundabout (formerly known as the Pearl Roundabout)." So I suppose "Friday night" means LATE Thursday night. Either way, I can't imagine they will be allowed easily to exercise their "right of return," as they call it. First the U.S. Embassy and now this. It seems the February 14 folks are looking for a fight wherever they can get it.


And here are your marching orders, in case you missed them:


Update 4: F. Gregory Gause has a great article in Foreign Policy on the "sectarianization" of the Arab Gulf, in particular of the Saudi-Iran rivalry.

Update 5: It appears that tonight's march to the Pearl Roundabout is not going so well..

Mystery Solved: Bahrain Crackdown Actually "A Bureaucratic Mix-up"

The head of the BICI, Cherif Bassiouni, is being credited with having accomplished what many a lawyer and U.S. State Department official have been unable to do: secure the release of imprisoned al-Wifaq MPs Matar Matar and Jawad Fayruz; the high-profile defense attorney Muhammad al-Tajir; and 144 other detainees. This comes in addition to the release of 41 prisoners announced last week.

In an interview with The Washington Times--which incidentally also ran an op-ed attributed to King Hamad back in March; not sure what is going on there--Bassiouni tells that he was "promised" their release, explaining that

all 147 had been under the custody of military prosecutor general, accused of misdemeanors, and that the king had agreed to his request that they all be transferred to civilian courts prior to the royal order establishing the commission last month. Due to a bureaucratic mixup, however, he said the cases were not immediately transferred and he realized that most would linger in jail due to the onset of Ramadan, in most cases exceeding the maximum 6-month sentences for their alleged crimes.

Oops! Well, you know how those crazy Bahraini bureaucracies work: sometimes you're given access to a lawyer and charged with actual crimes and allowed to talk to your family while in prison for several months, and sometimes due to some clerical error you're not. That's just the way things go.


It's strange, moreover, that all of a sudden the two most prominent defendants (who by the way are only free pending trial) are now being accused of mere misdemeanors. Are people accused of misdemeanors usually chased through the streets along with their wife and kids by masked commandos brandishing machine guns? (See the story Matar Matar's wife tells Al-Jazeera English in the video below.)



Notably, finally, today's announcement sits in stark contrast to Bassiouni's widely-circulated comments to Reuters just two days ago, when he seemed to attempt once again to lower the expectations for the BICI investigation:

The investigation itself, he warned, cannot right relations between Bahrain's rulers and its Shi'ite population, which says it is systematically denied access to land, housing and state employment on sectarian grounds.

"This doesn't address the endemic problems, doesn't address the need for political change, for a new constitution, the economic disparities or the political division of Sunnis and Shi'a. All the underlying problems remain," Bassiouni said.

"That's not going to solve the problems of power disparities between the Shi'ite population and the Sunni rulers, nor the feeling of injustice the Shi'a community has."

He also seemed in the interview to offer a prelude to the likely findings of the inquiry, namely that while there were obvious mistakes made by individual police and military personnel, "there was never a policy of excessive use of force or torture...that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I think it was a case of people at the lower level acting, and there not being an effective chain of communication, control." That is to say, no one at high levels is (or will be held) accountable.

Well, in any case, some 185 people awaiting opaque military trials have been released from prison over the past week or so and will at least be tried under more reasonable circumstances. We can all agree to be happy in that, right? You would think so, wouldn't you?

Except that many on the pro-government side are not. Already pissed off by the Al-Jazeera English documentary and by the State of Qatar more generally, they are in no mood to welcome this newest development that smacks of BICI "interference in Bahrain's internal affairs." Quick: can someone check to see if there is a city in Iran called Bassioun?

Thus, for example, we have this commentator, who is representative of the general lot (although admittedly there are some who say if this is what the king wants then we should support him):


"Bassiouni needs to be thrown out of the country before there is no more country.

There's nothing left but for Bassiouni to bring us an elected government too; that's what was missing."

Perhaps this is why the Prime Minister "has instructed all ministries and government bodies to speed up the implementation of the visions agreed upon at the National Consensus Dialogue," according to the BNA. The sooner he can take over more power the better!

On the subject of bureaucratic mix-ups, finally, there seems to have been another apart from the one that affected Matar Matar et al. Qatar's The Peninsula is reporting that "Bahraini authorities are so upset with Doha-based Aljazeera TV Channel that they are reportedly not allowing the Channel’s staff — both Qatari nationals and expatriates — into the country." This comes a day after the Bahraini Foreign Ministry denied any diplomatic rift. I'm sure their immigration paperwork was just misplaced!

Perhaps not, however. Both of today's top Al-Watan columnists are running anti-Qatar stories. The first, by Faisal al-Shaykh, is explicitly so, going so far as to group Al-Jazeera as a state-sponsored propagandist along with Al-Manar and Al-Alam; and even to accuse Qatar of using the documentary to get back at Bahrain for taking the al-Hawar Islands. For these and other staggering revelations, see here:


The second, by our friend Al Bin Khalil, is a bit more subtle but addresses the issue of "The Electronic Sectarian War."

Moreover, pro-government forum-goers are even planning some sort of rally in front of the Qatari Embassy. A vote about whether to hold one reveals around 75% in favor.


Where is the National Unity Gathering when you need it most?!

We end, finally, with two strange news items, even by Bahrain standards. The first is an 'Ali Salman sighting. His extended time outside the country has led many to speculate about his whereabouts. So, is he in London starting the new Lulu TV channel? In Beirut hanging out with Nasrallah? In fact, he is in ... Turkey?


Anyone want to take a crack at a conspiracy theory for this one?

The second news item is the unlikely reappointment of Mansur al-Jamri as editor-in-chief of Al-Wasat after a shareholders' meeting today. The decision evidently has the blessing of the government (see comments section). Now everyone can thankfully stop saying the terrible name Obaidly al-Obaidly.

Update: Al-Jazeera English is actually running a segment on the new London-based LuLu TV channel, which evidently has begun airing after all. Al-Wifaq still denies any relationship with it.



Update 2: You have to feel for the pro-governments. Not only are they unhappy about the Al-Jazeera documentary, unhappy about the prisoner release today, but now they are also unhappy about the rumor (which I suppose is now all but confirmed; see the comments section below) that the crown prince directly intervened to help Mansur al-Jamri return to the head of Al-Wasat. Muhammad Khalid says: "Some official from His Highness the Crown Prince's court needs to confirm or deny the news of the crown prince's phone call to help Mansur al-Jamri, because it is provoking Bahrain's Sunnis and they aren't happy." If only there were some less compromising members of the royal family to take over leadership of the country!


Also, as another one of our informed commentators predicted, 'Ali Salman is said to be back in Bahrain.

Update 3: Matar Matar and Jawad Fayruz tell the BBC that they were tortured while in custody. What was that headline in Al-Watan English again? I think it's time Matar Matar got a new lawyer!

Update 4: yet more hilarity is ensuing--or rather issuing--from Al-Watan English on the topic of its newest enemy Al-Jazeera. First we have "The Despicable Jazeera TV" which is rather self-explanatory. But there is also a new offering from Yusif Al Bin Khalil in which he charges Qatar with aiding and abetting the February 14 uprising. He writes in part,

One of the coup d’état leaders, who wanted to establish the Bahraini Islamic Republic, was caught red-handed in an abandoned area on the Southern Coast of Bahrain. As soon as the forces of Peninsula Shield put an end to the occupation of the Gulf Cooperation Council Roundabout, he was arrested before secretly leaving the country on board of a Qatari boat. Suffice me to mention these two anecdotes to talk about the Qatari foreign policy towards the Gulf countries and in particular towards Bahrain. This policy is so biased and dishonest that it provokes not only the feelings of Bahraini people but also Qatari people themselves. Al Jazeera Channel coverage of the events in Bahrain is not innocent either. Its sneaky methods and dirty tricks are dubious. The Qatari foreign policy towards Bahrain and the role of Doha in the last February and March events in Bahrain have been veiled in secrecy due to the sensitivity of the relations between both countries. But it is so obvious that some people want to damage these relations. Therefore, it is high time we identified the agenda ,put forward in our relations and analyzed its future trends so that we can reach a more in-depth understanding of the nature of our relationship.

Update 5: The ever-entertaining Lee Smith at The Weekly Standard has a new piece on Bahrain titled "The Bahrain Crack-Up."

"Bahrain: Shouting in the Dark"

Anyone wondering why it is that Bahraini society and politics won't soon be returning to normal--National Dialogue or no National Dialogue; BICI or no BICI; September by-elections or no by-elections--need only watch this newly-released Al-Jazeera English documentary of February 14 and the aftermath. No more commentary needed.

Sh. Hamid bin Khalifah Al Thani: expect a call from your friends in the GCC.



Update: Indeed, the Qatar damnations are already flying from Foreign Minister Khalid bin Ahmad's Twitter account:


"It is clear that in Qatar there are those who don't want good for Bahrain. And this movie is the best example of the incomprehensible hate." (29 mins)

"One full hour of exclusive copyright to Al-Jazeera that shows the opinion of one eye only, and excludes the view of the full Bahraini nation. You deserve an Oscar." (24 mins)

Update 2: the Bahrain Mirror has a great article on the Bahraini government reaction to the Al-Jazeera documentary, not least on account of the following graphic:


Update 3: Things are getting testy. Habib Toumi writes for the Gulf News:

Bahrain's foreign minister has denied reports that his country had severed its diplomatic ties with Qatar following the airing of a programme by Al Jazeera English deemed offensive by Manama.

Winning the Battle, Losing the (Media) War: Al-Watan English Edition

If you're like me, and you woke up this morning after having finally finished your 355-page dissertation that you'd been working on since around 2008 and wanted to revel in a bit of Al-Watan goodness, you were greeted with the following front page:


Which is to say, the rumor we reported back on June 24 about Al-Watan opening an English-language version of its website has finally come to fruition, a veritable Ramadan gift to Anglo-Saxons everywhere. Even better than the surprise launching of the website per se is the obvious decision to spare no effort in publishing the most sensationalist articles possible, evidently aimed to persuade feeble-minded English-speakers with no access to other news sources of the truth of the Royal Court's positions. Today's offerings include a story (seen above) about Iran "trying to impose its guardianship on the whole world," and some others not pictured here:

• "The Iranian project to overthrow the Bahraini kingdom – a great phase in Gulf history";


• "Al Samaraee: the White House has ignored the suffering of Iranian Sunnis but gives way to sedition in Bahrain"; and


• "Matar Matar Was not Tortured, Affirms His Lawyer." Of course not!
  

Even more excited was I when I reached the bottom right-hand corner of the website, when what should appear but the daily "Views" column of our friend Yusif Al Bin Khalil, conveniently translated into English.


Of course, this would have been nicer a month or so ago when he was still writing regular anti-U.S. propaganda. After the series about the new U.S. Ambassador to Bahrain, he seems to have cooled off more recently to focus mainly on domestic politics, no doubt helped by a King Hamad said to be increasingly annoyed at such activities by pro-government Sunnis and their royal backers. All the same, this should save a bit of time for those who follow such things.

Yet, there is a downside of this English-language edition, which is that the site automagically redirects readers in the U.S. and U.K. (and perhaps outside of Bahrain more generally?) to the more selective English version. So far, I can only manage to find the Arabic articles from either direct links or sub-section pages, and the main Arabic site is inaccessible. How ironic would it be if I were forced to use a proxy in order to access content only available to Bahrainis? That is a paradox.

The launching of the Al-Watan site coincides conveniently with the passing away of another notable pro-government outlet, the Bahrain Independent, which seems to have disappeared overnight along with the personal blog of one of its most prolific contributors, Saqir Al Khalifa, whose efforts have reportedly earned him the new position of media attaché at Bahrain's embassy in Washington. At the same time, another faux journalist and (former) Bahrain Independent contributor, "Liliane Khalil," seems not to exist at all. (Sort of like this guy "James Wilfred Clancy" who was supposedly "running a private investigation report on the current situation in Bahrain" back in March and April, for which we are all still waiting anxiously.)


Whatever the reason for pulling the plug on this operation--perhaps Saqir Al Khalifa's official promotion, perhaps the BICI investigation, perhaps the fact that the views of the Royal Court may now be promulgated directly to Western audiences through the new Al-Watan website--the world has doubtless lost an entertaining source of news and opinion written by people who may or may not have ever existed.

Beyond its connection in timing to the now-defunct Bahrain Independent, the new Al-Watan site is also useful for present purposes in that its aforementioned article denying that (former al-Wifaq MP) Matar Matar is/was being tortured in prison--a convenient thing to say given the newly-arrived BICI committee supposed to be investigating that sort of thing--leads directly to a discussion of one person about which you could not say the same: Wa'ad founder Ebrahim Sharif, who yesterday published (via visiting family members) a first-person account of his arrest, torture, and trial.

As part of my dissertation research in Bahrain, I interviewed political and religious figures from all segments of Bahraini society, ranging from Sh. 'Abd al-Wahhab Hussain to Sh. Jasim al-Sa'idi. Among these also was Ebrahim Sharif, whose son, at the time we met, was about to leave for study at my very own University of Michigan. While his family had always insisted that he was being ill-treated and even tortured, reading the actual narrative in his own hand is still eerie. It tells in part,

The arrest took place around 1:45 AM on the morning of Thursday, March 17^th, 2011 when the doorbell rang. I went outside with my wife and found a group of masked investigators in addition to armed and masked policemen. They were accompanied by a National Security officer who was unarmed and dressed in civilian clothing. The officer asked me to open the front gate of the garden, and I asked him if he had an arrest warrant. He answered by saying no arrest warrant is required in the case of “National Security”. ...

Next, I was taken out of the building, where my blindfolds were suddenly removed and I found myself surrounded by many masked men that pushed me around and cursed at me with swears such as “Your mother’s pussy”, “bastard”, and other degrading swear words. I was then blindfolded again and put into a van with other people, including Mr. Hassan Mushaima, who I recognized when I heard the security men call his name as they placed him into the van.

We later arrived to “Grein” prison at around 5 AM and were escorted out of the van. We stood in an area blindfolded as authorities and wardens directed threats and profanity at us. I heard them also curse at Mr. Hassan Mushaima, saying phrases such as “To hell with you and your 12 imams”. ...

That same evening of the arrest the torture sessions began… at first, cold water was poured on my bed, mattress, pillows, blanket, and myself while the air conditioning was running. The room was cold and sleep was impossible especially with all the water the mattress, pillows, and blankets had absorbed. Afterwards, a group of around 5-6 masked men barged into the room and asked me to stand in a corner where they took shifts slapping, boxing, and kicking me, in addition to cursing me. They asked me to repeat after them praises for the King and especially the Prime Minister. The same torture cycle continued for a week where they’d torture and hit me twice or three times daily as well as pour water on my mattress, blanket and myself. And since the cells were all close to one another, I was able to hear the screams of other detainees and the orders and profanity of the wardens.

And so on. (If you're interested in this sort of thing, another Bahraini political dissident--'Ali al-Jallawi--has written a similar account of his time in prison during the late 1990s. A portion of his memoirs, God After Ten O'Clock, has recently been translated into English and published online here.)

Between the description of Ebrahim Sharif; the accusations surrounding the treatment of Matar Matar and Jawad Fayruz (who even if they have not been tortured have in any case not been heard from since their arrest on May 1); and God knows how many other ordinary citizens, the BICI certainly has its work cut out for it. Oddly, moreover, even as the latter is to begin its work investigating past excesses, no shortage of additional abuses continue. These include most blatantly a recent raid of the Doctors Without Borders office in retaliation for its treatment of "a man who had come to [its] premises with a serious head injury" as a result of a confrontation with riot police. (Update: the Bahrain Medical Society President is now defending the raid as having been "very good." Alright..)

At the same time, Bahrain's political situation has entered a Ramadan-induced lull that has given rise to a series of rumors and narratives, the most prominent of which is that al-Wifaq is now in disarray as a result of internal dissension between moderates (who are said to want to participate in the September by-elections) and the ever-dangerous "hard-liners" (who do not) that has led to a number of resignations. Thus, the story goes, did al-Wifaq decide to revoke the membership of individuals abroad, which it explained disingenuously as a legal measure to bring the group in line with its bylaws.

A recent article in the Gulf Daily News expands on these rumors, which include new reports of a London-based satellite TV channel (supposedly named "Lulu" or Pearl--as in, presumably, the Pearl Roundabout) run by al-Wifaq, which it has long denied. The article tells:

Certain hardline groups in Al Wefaq National Islamic Society are calling for its boycott of supplementary elections.

They are opposing any kind of political participation even as some members of the society’s Shura council called for taking part in the polls and adopting a more realistic vision of the situation in the country.

Society secretary-general Shaikh Ali Salman recently froze memberships of those living abroad, to enable reformists within the Shura council to reach a decision on the elections, sources said.

Shaikh Salman has to now face tough opposition from the “conservative group”, especially after Al Wefaq pulled out of the National Dialogue, which reflects the great pressure hardliners are exerting on the society, the sources added.

Other rumors include that:

• 'Ali Salman, who has not been seen in Bahrain since an al-Wifaq rally several weeks ago, is variously: in Lebanon to consult with his Hizballah masters, or in London to meet secretly with the Crown Prince;


• Interior Minister Sh. Rashid bin Abdallah may enter into talks with the opposition;
  


• Authorities are planning to "step up repression" during Ramadan; and
  


• The February 14 folks are thinking of launching a "civil disobedience" campaign, whatever that means.
  

If you notice, however, all of these include words like "may," "are planning to," "are thinking of," and so on, and seem to reflect mainly the current uncertainty of Bahrain's political path forward. Indeed, the conditionality of such rumors remind one of Robert Gates' statement about Iran's involvement in the February uprising: We "have evidence that they are talking about what they can do to try and create problems." Which is to say that anything may or may not be happening at all.

One thing that we can thankfully still count on amid all this rumor and the death of the Bahrain Independent is the weekly Friday rally of al-Wifaq, which is to occur this weekend in Karzakan under the headline "Security for All." The electronic flier, which I am going to have to downgrade from last week's beauty, carries the slogan: "We seed hope. They seed fear."


Perhaps 'Ali Salman will show up to deliver the keynote address just to throw everyone for a loop.

Update: I always forget the February 14 demonstration fliers, which are incidentally better than al-Wifaq's lately. This week's "Right to Self-determination" rally is in Bani Jamra in solidarity with the late 'Abd al-Amir al-Jamri and (Islamic Action Society leader) Sh. Al-Mahfudh:


The corresponding message from the Feb. 14 folks condemns the American support for "this bloody regime" (as in actual blood, not British bloody), so perhaps they are planning to take out their pent-up frustration in Bani Jamra since their demonstration at the U.S. Embassy last weekend was blocked by riot police.


Update 2: Al-Jazeera English has an interesting interview with the wife of Matar Matar that includes some striking video footage from March and April, strong criticism of the National Dialogue and even the BICI, and other things likely to make the Al Khalifa give Sh. Hamad bin Khalifa a call. Video:



And an even stronger, longer version: (Update: I actually posted this before viewing the entire 50 minutes. It's a difficult thing to watch, but really should be at the top of this post.)