Is Bahrain a Shiite Uprising?
by zunguzungu
The New York Times would like you to know that it is! And because of seven years of American occupation of Iraq, readers of the NYT now understand that, in some way or another, Sunni and Shiite are different. They might even be aware that Shiites have something to do with Iran or something. So when this morning’s Times article makes it clear that the “Clashes at Protest for Second Day in Bahrain” are the result of a Shiite rebellion against a Sunni government, we feel like we understand:
MANAMA, Bahrain — After weeks of turmoil rolling through the Arab world, protesters in the Persian Gulf kingdom clashed for a second day with the police on Tuesday and a second demonstrator was killed by gunfire, spurring the largest Shiite bloc to suspend participation in the country’s Parliament.
Youth protested near police officers in Manama, Bahrain on Monday. The events came as mourners gathered for the funeral of a Shiite protester shot to death during what was called a “Day of Rage” protest on Monday, modeled on similar outbursts of discontent that have toppled autocratic regimes in Tunisia and Egypt since mid-January and spread on Monday to Iran.
With only about a million residents, half of them foreign workers, Bahrain has long been among the most politically volatile in the region. The principal tension is between the royal family under King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa and the ruling elites, who are mostly Sunnis, on one side, and the approximately 70 percent of the local population that is Shiite on the other.
Occupying mostly run-down villages with cinder block buildings and little else, many Shiites say they face systemic discrimination in employment, housing, education and government. The clashes Monday and Tuesday centered on small Shiite villages on the outskirts of Manama, the capital, places with narrow streets and alleyways.
But what do we understand when we use this conceptual frame? Or this, in the New York Times’ “Bahrain at a Glance” fact sheet:
There has long been tension between the Sunni Muslim king, Hamad Bin Isa al-Khalifa, the royal family and ruling elites, and the approximately 70 percent of the local population that is Shiite. About half the residents of Bahrain are foreign workers. Since late 2009, Shiites in villages around the nation have been holding regular protests, burning tires in the road, demanding the release of dozens of political prisoners, including 25 being tried on charges plotting to overthrow the state, charges seen by the populace as part of a broad effort to silence the Shiite majority.
In other words, I’m interested in what applying the conceptual framework of “sectarian conflict” does to our ability to make sense of an image like this one, the photograph that the NYT provides:
Al Jazeera, by contrast, frames its main article by the fact that “Bahrain Police Fire at Protesters,” not only using that fact as its lede, but only noting that “Shias, who are thought to be in the majority, have often alleged discrimination at the hands of the kingdom’s Sunni rulers” somewhere in the middle of the article. Police violence against protesters is the focus; the entire first third of the article emphasizes how a peaceful funeral procession — for a protester killed by the police the day before — was attacked by riot police:
“This morning the protesters were walking from the hospital to the cemetery and they got attacked by the riot police,” Alkhawaja said. “Thousands of people are marching in the streets, demanding the removal of the regime – police fired tear gas and bird shot, using excessive force – that is why people got hurt.” At least 25 people were reported to have been treated for injuries in hospital. An Al Jazeera correspondent in Bahrain, who cannot be named for his own safety, said that police were taking a very heavy handed approach towards the protesters.
In Al Jazeera’s account, it is absolutely clear that the police were the aggressors, while the NYT writes sentences in which “protesters” is the subject, and “clashed with the police” the verb phras, not only implying the reverse but allowing the “sectarian violence” to render the kind of populism we’re seeing a sectarian one, rather than a democratic one. And these are the macro-narratives that determine how the story will be read and understood. “Facts do not at all speak for themselves, but require a socially acceptable narrative to absorb, sustain, and circulate them,” as was said by Said, and it’s still true.
I don’t want to make it sound like Al Jazeera’s coverage is beyond reproach (and how would I know?), but I do note that they will tend to include things like this quote from Amira Al Hussaini — “a Bahraini blogger that monitors citizen media for Global Voices Online” — who not only comments on news coverage — allowing us to see the way news is the news — but identifying the “sectarian violence” narrative as the self-legitimizing story being told by the police themselves:
“I am trying to remain objective but I can’t – people are being shot at close range.” Hussaini said that people in Bahrain were very afraid. “We are afraid of going out in the streets and demanding our rights. Tunisia and Egypt have given people in Arab countries hope – even if you believe that something is impossible. I personally have no respect for the police – they lie, they manipulate the story,” she said. “This is being pitted as a sectarian issue – the Shia wanting to overthrow the regime. But it is not a Shia uprising.” She said that people from all backgrounds and religions are behind the protests
I’m about as far from an expert on Bahrain as it’s possible to be, but the fact that the Times uses a picture of protesters in Diraz running from the police and characterizes it in the way they do speaks volumes to me about the filters they’re using. There aren’t even any police in that picture, and that exclusion — that erasure — is powerful.
By contrast to that image, of a few scattered protesters, compare this video of that same crackdown in Diraz (via), a video which shows — in absolutely no uncertain terms — a group of peaceful protesters peacefully demonstrating and being attacked by a crowd of police that resembles an infantry charge more than a little. For about thirty seconds, you see a group of protesters standing and chanting. Then, the camera wheels around to view a crowd of police some hundred yards away, the crowd murmuring rises in volume, and you see the column of police charging across the field firing at the crowd. There are about twenty shots (tear gas?) and it’s scary to watch; the person holding the camera is running like hell, and you would too.
Or take a look at this video, in which an absolutely insane amount of tear gas is fired on protesters:
Some other things; I’m trying to write about media coverage because writing about the events in Bahrain themselves would require me to venture pretty far out of my comfort zone (though this article is a great historical background). But my overriding impression from the reading I’ve done (and especially the conversations I’m having with more knowledgeable people) is that while sectarian tension is certainly a part of what’s happening, it’s so interwoven with class issues (and so hard to characterize) that the primary failing of the framing used in that NY Times story is the false impression it gives us that we understood; the facts it gives us aren’t even wrong, as they say, because their framing context is absent. For example, though many of us are only discovering Bahrain now — as part of the larger Uprising in the Middle East! story — these particular protests are only an escalation of something that’s been going on for quite some time; I’m told, for example, that protest has been non-stop in Bahrain these days, and that the sight of riot police at the entrance to villages (young men burning tires) is sort of routine and has been for a while. What does that mean? And how would the “we” that includes me (an ignorant but well meaning searcher for meaning in ignorance) figure out what it might mean?
It does seem clear that this protest is working hard to frame itself in non-sectarian terms, though, so I’ll end with this — via and translated by Bint Battuta from an article in Arabic, much thanks — which articulates what (at least some of) the protesters are saying:
Bahrain may witness on Monday (February 14) a people’s movement in various villages of the country calling for political and social reforms and improvement of the standard of living. Bahrain may also witness on that day joy in other areas on the anniversary of theNational Action Charter. And in both scenes, all actions should be peaceful and civilised, showing the understanding and awareness of the young people of Bahrain of their precious nation and land. All demands should be conscious, reflecting the reality of the people of Bahrain who have long been known for their awareness and ability to draw attention to their concerns in all directions.
We experienced the uprising of the nineties which led with its blessings and the blood of its martyrs to the level of freedoms we enjoy today, even if they are restricted. Our people achieved many things, but these achievements did not last long, until the situation went back to the way it was before. The question is, what do we want on February 14?
- We want a genuine political life in which the people alone are the source of powers and legislation.
- We want a constitution drawn up by the people, and agreed upon, which is the arbitrator and judge in the relationship of the ruler to the ruled.
- We want genuine and fair elections based on fair foundations and the distribution of constituencies in which the vote of every individual Bahraini is equal.
- We want genuine representation, without the accusation of treason whenever we go out to demand our rights.
- We want a Council of Representatives that reflects the composition of the Bahraini people, without the majority being a minority and the minority a majority.
- We want a government that is elected, based on people’s competencies rather than “loyalties”.
- We want to fight corruption and stop the plundering of resources, and achieve a fair distribution of wealth.
- We want to stop nepotism, and to prevent recruitment according to affiliation, and to open all sectors, especially the military, to all people.
- We want an end to indiscriminate political naturalisation, which has increased the burden on services and oppressed people.
- We want true freedom, without a law against “terrorism” and “gatherings”.
- We want true media freedom, and the door to be opened for everyone to express their opinions freely and without fear.
- We want security in villages and towns, and the release of political prisoners and the reform of prisons, and the end of oppression, torture and intimidation.
- We want genuine solutions to the problems of unemployment, housing, education, and health.
- We want the police to “serve the people”, and we want the army to be of the people.
- This is truly what we want; we do not want to overthrow the regime, as many imagine, and we do not want to gain control of the government, we do not want chairs and seats here or there. We want to be a people living with dignity and rights.
Occupying mostly run-down villages with cinder block buildings and little else, many [proletarians] say they face systemic discrimination in employment, housing, education and government.
Part of the problem – arguably the greater part – is the British legacy of conflating ethnicity – of which sect is a major component in some places – with class. (Sorry about the dashes. I think in parentheticals) Clearly, I think, the Bahrain protests are class-based and aspirational, sort of a “I want to be bourgeoise”-democratic-revolution.
But our media is lazy. In a year or so, NPR will discover the class roots of the uprisings, but nobody else will notice. Not even most of NPR.
I don’t think this framing is a result of laziness–which isn’t to say many journalists aren’t lazy–but of an intentional, ideologically-driven, if subtle, effort to efface what’s really going on. To make what is in fact class struggle look like something else–i.e., a pointless sectarian squabble.
And this is a device widely used by the media and “experts” to prevent understanding of the relevant political context of events that don’t fit the preferred narrative.
(NB: It wouldn’t surprise me if the journalists and experts in question aren’t in a sense unwitting accomplices, more or less believing what the say. But they have been chosen for their posts because they have “demonstrated” they can be relied upon to generate the desired spin.)
I wonder if the bahrainis hate the pakis living in Bahrain?
[…] across the MENA region, from Morocco to Iran. Aaron Bady aka @zunguzungo has a fabulous piece up at Useless got to eat, so pay me! Is Bahrain a Shiite Uprising? — not so much about Bahrain itself but in pointing out the contrast between the U.S. […]
[…] Zunguzungu discussed whether the protests could be considered a “Shiite uprising.” […]
hi u shia uprising dont u have shame what u doing this tiny beautiful country u want to bring another shia iraq. u will never get it how much u make fitna and u know the kind and honest king ahamad make possible to developement in bahrain u want to distroy u lazy to work plenty of employement is available and u share and enjoy the wealty of this country but u lie be honest and work together look forward peace and properity and stop ur fitnas
Thanks for the article. While reading a book about the crusades which has a section on the sunni shiite split, I got the idea that there are at least some sectarian issues going on, as the leaders of the Egypt, Bahrain, and Tunisa are Sunni. The protestors seem to be Shiite along with other oprressed people. Not all groups are monolithic of course. Achmadinajad (Shiite) is portrayed as a hypocrite by the Obama administration for praising the Egyptian uprising. My thought is that he is not being hypocritical, but praising the downfall of a Sunni leader who oppresses the Shiite population. Saddam was the first Sunni leader to fall that oppressed the shiite population. Wikileaks showed a cable suggesting that the Mabarak removal was planned to happen in 2011 back in 2008. Every few centuries there is a power shift in the world. Maybe it is just time for a power shift like the earths magnetic poles. Who will emerge as the new dictators and oppressors of the earth?
It seems like nothing ever really changes. Those who are oppressed eventually rise up and become the oppressors until the roles reverse again, or a new group gets involved and oppresses both groups. It appears to be the cycle of the world.
[…] comme le Ministre des Affaires Etrangères de Bahreïn nous y invite, et comme le New York Times l’a évidemment fait mardi. Ou plutôt, écoutons cela : la voix des manifestations populaires, scandant : “Ni […]
The New York Times piece you refer to seems to be trying to make the reader understand why anyone in Bahrain would interrupt their supposed daily life of going to work, getting the kids ready for school, and take to the streets instead, risking life and limb. They’re trying to answer the question “why?”. The al-Jazeera piece takes you to the streets, shows you some of the reality on the ground, and also questions the conventional wisdom of a Shi’ite uprising, giving one quote. I lived in Bahrain for years, I left in 2008. I have NO inside information on this uprising. Based on my knowledge of the place at that time, this is most certainly an uprising of predominantly Shi’a people for this reason: They see the wealth of the country (substantial, but modest in comparison to some other countries in the region) being allocated mostly, but not exclusively, to the royal family and their circle of mostly, but not exclusively, Sunni Muslims. And they want their piece. In fact, they’d like to have it all and shut out the Sunnis. Is this a sectarian conflict? I guess you could say it’s an economic conflict that happens to conform to an existing sectarian division in the country.
But this is the real reason I write: No where in any of the coverage is there treatment of what I think is the major social problem in the Gulf region, if I define “major” as the problem which affects the most people. That is this: Huge proportions of Gulf country populations are made up of indentured servants and slave laborers from the Indian subcontinent (and, increasingly, East Asia). It is due to the cheap and sometimes free labor of these people that Gulf nations have infrastructures, and enjoy a comparatively high standard of living. And whatever the fate of this would-be revolution in Bahrain, their plight will not change in the Gulf. But alas, the there is no discussion of the abuse of these people, whose deaths in Bahrain in a single year due to their circumstances I THINK might be more numerous than what has occurred thus far at the hands of the authorities in these protests. (I have no proof, just anecdotal recollections of having read the local newspapers for 6.5 years). I think THIS is a huge problem in media coverage of any sort of dramatic event: There are often far more significant problems (sleeping elephants in the room?) that escape mention because there is no photo-op or drama to report. Everything must be shown to be like a team competition, and we need to be guided who to root for.