Latest News

Latest News…

Lord Avebury Protesting Against Misrepresenting His ViewsOn Monday 25th August 2003, Gulf Daily News made an interview with Lord Avebury on the phone for one hour. That was regarding the seminar on Bahrain which was held in the house of lords on 22nd August 2003. He repeated what he said in the seminar. They only chose a short piece from the whole interview.Following is a letter emailed on 28th August 2003 by Lord Avebury to Gulf Daily News, protesting against misrepresenting his views, and challenging them to publish his letter. The letter is followed by the original piece of interview published in the Gulf Daily news on the 28th August 2003.————————————————————————————————- Dear Sir,For publicationI have now seen the article you printed following my interview with you on the GDN.This is an unbalanced account of our discussion. You picked out my commendation of the reforms made so far, but left out all the detailed comments I made about the defects in the process. and particularly the three taboos which are not discussed in Bahrain, thus neatly illustrating the other point I made about self-censorship.The three subjects that are not politically correct to write or broadcast about in Bahrain are: the monopoly control by the royal family of most of the principal offices of the state including ministries, diplomatic posts, the governorship of Manama etc; corruption and lack of transparency at senior levels of government, and discrimination against the Shi’a majority of the population.These problems were discussed extensively at the seminar I chaired last Friday, and they were covered again during the interview. You had the text of my remarks at the seminar in front of you also, and you decided to ignore all but one paragraph of it.This is not responsible journalism, and I hope that in accordance with the practice of newspapers in other countries where freedom of expression exists, you will afford me the right to make these comments through your letters page. I reserve the right, however, to take other measures to inform the Bahraini public of the while truth.Yours faithfully,Eric Avebury26 Flodden RoadLondon SE5 9LH tel 020-7274 4617 fax 020-7738 7864 email ericavebury@hotmail.comHouse of Lords London SW1A 0AA————————————————————————————————-Gulf Daily News, Thursday 28 August 2003 Nation ‘should map out steps for the future’ BAHRAIN has laid the foundations for democracy, but still has a long way to go, says a leading British and international human rights campaigner. It has taken four major and highly commendable steps in the right direction, says British Parliamentary Human Rights Group vice-chairman Lord Avebury. These are the release of all political prisoners, abolition of the State Security Court, the invitation to all exiles to return and the granting of a “large measure” of freedom of expression. All these are positive steps which Lord Avebury says he praised during his audience with His Majesty King Hamad during a visit to Bahrain in January this year. “These steps have prepared the ground for democracy,” he said But Bahrain must not rest on its laurels and should already be mapping out the next steps towards a full democracy and constitutional monarchy, Lord Avebury told the GDN following a meeting in London. The meeting, at Abbey Gardens, London, was organised by the Gulf Centre for Strategic Studies to discuss democracy in Bahrain. It was attended by 30 members of the public, including representatives of political societies, Shura Council, Bahrain Chamber of Commerce and Industry, House of Lords members, human rights groups and the media. Lord Avebury said many of the steps taken by Bahrain were only a start to what should be achieved. “Freedom of expression is a condition of democracy, not democracy itself,” he said. Lord Avebury said he was very much encouraged to see the development of civil society, with the formation of many new non-governmental organisations (NGOs), trade unions and political bodies. “The kingdom should continue to discuss and enact measures of reforms which will lead to full democracy,” he said.

“Democracy is an evolving process and not a static one.”

Lord Avebury Speech In The House of Lords 22 August 2003Bahrain SeminarWe are here to mark two anniversaries: the 32nd anniversary of Bahrain’s independence on August 15, and the 28th anniversary of the abrogation of the constitution in 1975 on August 25. You will remember the cliché of George Santayana, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Obviously, what happened in Bahrain in the early seventies isn’t going to be repeated in the 21st century, but we can certainly benefit from looking back at those events and thinking about what can be learned from them.Almost everywhere in the British Empire, self-government was introduced before the colonialists departed. Hereditary rulers were reduced to ceremonial figures in large parts of Africa and Asia, and the ideas of democracy, freedom of the individual and the rule of law were left behind. It must have seemed to Bahrainis in 1971 that with the advent of independence, they would start making decisions on governance for themselves, and with a new constitution the following year, they had every reason to be satisfied that progress was being made. Few people would have expected that for the next quarter of a century Bahrain would step backwards into a political ice age, with all the apparatus of repression and dictatorship that followed the coup of 1975, when the Amir sent the infant Parliament into oblivion. The lesson of that event was that hereditary absolute monarchs do their best to hang onto power, as Europeans know from their own history. Charles I of England, Louis XVI of France, Ferdinand of Naples, and the Tsar Nicholas of Russia all fought tooth and nail to avoid giving up their rights and privileges to the people.Where King Hamad has been rather more astute than his royal predecessors has been that over the last three years he has removed the worst excesses of his father’s régime, so that at first people thought genuine advances were going to be made towards democracy, but establishing only a painted façade of democracy, bearing no much resemblance to the real thing. People voted for the National Charter on the basis of assurances given by the Amir that the 1973 constitution would remain and would take precedence over the Charter; that legislative power would belong solely to the elected House; that the nominated Shura would be consultative only, and that the powers of the Amir would be limited to those prescribed in the 1973 Constitution. Unfortunately, the Charter was a confusing and ambiguous document, and there was no mechanism for challenging its interpretation. There is to be a constitutional court, but you can’t build a system of law from the top down. First, there has to be an independent judiciary, which has never existed and does not exist in Bahrain. This was one of the matters dealt with by Cherie Blair in the lectures that she gave during her visit in January, just after I had been there. Mrs Blair’s office sent me copies of her lectures, on the understanding that I would keep them for my own use and not reveal them to any third party, which seemed odd to me since I could hardly believe that she intended her words only for the select audience who attended the lectures, when presumably the visit was intended to emphasise the benefits of wider public participation in the affairs of Bahrain.The National Charter said that Bahrain would ‘join democratic constitutional monarchies’, but the present system of government bears no resemblance to any other modern constitutional monarchy. Bahrain is only a constitutional monarchy in the sense that it has a constitution and a monarchy, but not in the sense that we use the term. The monarch has no power over the appointment of ministers in Britain, Spain, Japan or Holland. But in Bahrain, the King appoints and dismisses the Prime Minister and other Ministers; he appoints and dismisses members of the upper house; he chairs the Higher Judicial Council (Article 33); he amends the Constitution (Article 35); he has power to proclaim a state of national safety or martial law (Article 36); he appoints civil servants, military personnel and ambassadors (Article 40) and he has power to dissolve the Chamber of Deputies (Article 42). In the exercise of all these powers, he is constrained only by the need to maintain harmony among the principal members of the ruling family, who occupy all the leading positions in the government without democratic legitimacy.The National Charter, which was approved by the overwhelming majority of the voters, said nothing about a new constitution, and the abrogation of the previous constitution was an arbitrary act of state, hardly an auspicious beginning for a democracy. The Charter provided (in Chapter V) that Bahrain would have a bicameral system; one chamber ‘that is constituted through free, direct elections whose mandate will be to enact laws, and a second one that would have people with experience and expertise who would give advice as necessary’. The Constitution, however, gives the Consultative Council a veto over legislation passed by the Chamber of Deputies. In the event of a disagreement between the two Houses, they meet together as a single entity, the ‘National Assembly’, in which there would be the 40 elected Members, and the 40 Members appointed to the Consultative Council by the King. It is argued that the King nevertheless does not automatically get his way, because it is possible that some of his appointees may not follow the royal line on a particular measure. However, not all the elected Members will oppose the King, and if in spite of all the precautions, the National Assembly fails to agree on a Bill within 15 days, the King can enact it by decree (Article 87).These are not minor flaws which can be corrected with the passage of time, because only the King has power to amend the Constitution. I think that the King agreed with me when I said that democracy had to be a dynamic process, but there is no discussion about the next stages that might be acceptable. I did get some response when I talked about the provisions in the Constitution which mention equality, and it was agreed that I would send them material on the CRE and the EOC, which the Foreign Office have now asked those bodies to provide. If we can get them to think in these terms, it might enable them to address the problem which is not discussed in polite company, of discrimination against the Shi’a majority who constitute 65% of the population. Shi’a are not employed in the armed forces, the Ministry of the Interior, the police, the customs and other public sector bodies. In the organisations that do employ Shi’a, they are mainly concentrated in the lower ranks.The Shi’a feel threatened because of the government’s policy of granting citizenship to foreign Sunnis from other Gulf countries, as well as to Syrians, Yemenis, Pakistanis etc, recruited into the armed forces and the police. They believe that the policy is one of demographic engineering, to make Bahrain a Sunni majority state. However, the foreigners are increasingly causing resentment among Sunni natives, because of their privileged lifestyles. Unless there is a political will to implement the constitution’s promise of equality there can never be harmony and social cohesionAnother serious grievance is Decree 56, which exonerates public servants for any acts they committed before July 2002. This means that the torturers who killed and severely injured many people under the previous Amir cannot be prosecuted. I did venture to suggest that this Decree was not compatible with Bahrain’s obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and it would be agreed that if Bahrain is to take its place among democracies, obedience to the rule of international law is essential.Finally, there is another taboo subject which I found was discussed behind closed doors in Bahrain, but not in public: the endemic corruption, which infects business and causes investors to look elsewhere for opportunities in the Gulf.

Let me end on a positive note. I found, during my visit, that there are many new NGOs springing up, including an independent women’s organisation which was awaiting approval. There were new trade unions, human rights organisations, and bodies that could become political parties if allowed to do so. Friends of Bahrain should encourage the growth of civil society, and perhaps there is more we can do from the UK to help the process. But let us remember the events of the early seventies, and acknowledge that as long as all effective power remains in the grip of the ruling family, fundamentally nothing has changed.

BFM Statement 22 August 2003Bahrain: Real democracy to end decades of political strife When the British withdrew from Bahrain on 15 August 1971, the Al KHalifa ruling family which had ruled the country since they conqured it in 1783, pledged themselves to establish a constitutional democracy. Their pledge was put into practice soon afterwards. A contractual constitution was drawn up and an elected parliament elected. By mid 1975, the prime minister had no more stomach to a pseudo-democratic experience that would question the policies of his government. He took the decision to abandon the constitutional experiment and suspended the articles of the constitution relating to it. That was the first coup against the people’s right to participate in running their own affairs. After 25 years of struggle the people managed to bring their case to the attention of the international community. In 1994 a popular uprising erupted and the situation in Bahrain became an international issue. When the former ruler, Sheikh Isa bin Salman Al Khalifa passed away in 1999, his son, Sheikh Hamad, assumed power. It now appears that in the first two years of his rule he had drawn his strategy that would change the fabric of Bahrain society forever. He decided on a fundamental change of the rule of the political game, by undertaking to change the delicate balance within the Bahraini society. He would not tolerate dissent by any group, and he would take enough measures to make that possible. He decided to uproot the political traditions and impose his own. First he abrogated the only legal document that offered legitimacy to the Al Khalifa rule in the country, and on 14 February 2002, he declared the imposition of his own constitution. Meanwhile he had already taken steps to offer the Bahraini nationality to tens of thousands of foreigners, thereby destablising the internal demographic balance. His uncle had imported foreign workforce in large numbers in order to weaken the local workforce. Sheikh Hamad is now importing an new people whom he wants to rule, and thus undermining the natives of the country. In order to make those fundamental changes possible, he had to undertake some positive steps, like the release of political prisoners, allow the return of political exiles and allow a degree of freedom of speech. He has however, tightened his grip over the media, the police, the army and the intelligence. Today, as we celebrate 32 years of independence and 28 years of non-constitutional rule, an atmosphere of pessimism is all but engulfing the country. No material change has occurred to their livelihood or freedom. The past few weeks have witnessed an increase in tension with the protests of the unemployed, the prisoners and the taxi and bus drivers. The political societies which were allowed to function feel marginalized and offered only a symbolic freedom to act, while the policy of the ruling family is based on the motto that says: “you say what you want, we do what we want”. Until today, there has never been any national dialogue or reconciliation. Sheikh Hamad went as far as protecting perpetrators of human rights violations by issuing his notorious decree no 56/2002, his press law that curtails the freedom of press and exchange of information and, most devastating of all, his decree offering Bahraini citizenship to citizens of GCC countries whose number is around 20 millions. There is no faith in the ability of the ruling family to adapt to modern norms and policies of civilized societies, and the Al Khalifa family is now engaged in the most savage of its programmes, that aims at changing the demographic balance of Bahrain. We oppose these measures, we oppose the king’s constitution and his decrees that have no legal basis. We call for real democracy that enables the people to participate in running their own affairs within a freely-elected parliament and a contractual constitution. Without these measures, the winds of change are likely to sweep the ruling clique from the political scene. Bahrain Freedom Movement

22 August 2003

Mr Hassan Mushaime Speech In The House of Lords 22 August 2003Good day Ladies and Gentlemen,It’s my honour to address you and bring to your kind attention the voice of the people of Bahrain. First, I would like to thank you for your help and support during our struggle for freedom and democracy in our country. You achieved a moral high ground when you responded to our calls from behind bars for freedom and from thousands of miles away. We appreciate your good deeds; we really do.You may have heard about the kindness and the good nature of Bahrainis. This peaceful and generous nation is, yet, under another threat. It is the cultural genocide ‘Culturecide’ or ‘Ethnocide’. This is conducted through what is known as “political” naturalization.Repressing a nation is not achieved by the use of military force; changing the demography of a society, which is worse, is another mean. This is what is actually taking place, nowadays, in Bahrain. The Government is trying to oppress the natives by means of naturalizing selective people from selective regions for political agenda.In this short presentation, I will endeavour to brief you about the background of this threat and its violation to us as Bahrainis and to, seek your assistance, once again, to confront this humanitarian crime and call for its termination. Another view, a legal one, is included for the legal reference. For the time allowed, I will be presenting the political naturalization from human rights perspective onlFor the past few decades, the Government of Bahrain has mobilized naturalization of foreigners to “secure” state political stability through changing the demography of the society.The Government has illegally, selectively and secretly granted citizenship to those from Sunni sect of Islam, to forcibly turn them into a majority. The act of changing the demography was denounced not only by Shia figures, but also by Sunni leaders. Most of naturalized aliens work in security related institutions. They were extensively used for repressing the movement for freedom and democracy during the nineties.The evidence is clear, as it will be later presented in this report, that these people were given Bahraini citizenships to serve political objectives. That’s why we call it ‘political naturalization’.The ‘political naturalization’ violates human rights in many aspects:1. Discrimination against native Bahrainis:The ‘political naturalization’ discriminates against native people of Bahrain:While hundreds of people born in Bahrain, and so their ancestors, are still under the category of ‘bedoon’ or ‘stateless’, the Government freely grants citizenship to people who have not lived in Bahrain; not even for a day.While 18,000 Bahrainis are unemployed-15% of the labour force as per the official figures, most of the naturalized for political reasons enjoy state jobs their arrival to Bahrain. They are mainly employed by the Bahrain Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Interior, and the National Guards. It is important to remark that the majority of the indigenous people of Bahrain are not allowed to work in these institutions.Most of the politically-naturalized are granted houses by the government from day one of their arrival, whereas the native people of Bahrain have to wait for years, extending in certain cases to a decade, in order to benefit from the governmental housing scheme.The discrimination stretches to higher educational institutions such as the University of Bahrain and Bahrain Training Institute where administrations show favorable treatment towards ‘politically-naturalized’ instructors against natives who have been waiting for long to be granted scholarships to continue their postgraduate studies.The above cases are clear evidence of ‘institutional discrimination’ practices against the native Bahraini people. 2. The Rule of Law and Abuse of Power:During the politically-driven naturalization process, the Government of Bahrain did not abide by the law, which is the main pillar of any democracy and civil society. All of those granted citizenship, on political grounds, were naturalized outisde the legal framework.The Bahraini Citizen Act does not allow people to have dual citizenship or to be naturalized without living for at least 15 consecutive years in Bahrain for the Arabs and 25 years for non-Arabs. Most of the ‘politically-naturalized’ people have not fulfilled such legal requirements. Some of them have never been to Bahrain before, neither their ancestors. Therefore, they are not legally qualified to be granted Bahraini citizenship.In a civil society, the rule of the law should be the first objective of the democracy. Unfortunately, tribal system has superceded the law and the constitution.3. Pseudo-Democracy and Manipulation of Election Results (Zallaq case):There is clear evidence that the Bahraini government has naturalized these people to manipulate the election porcess and tamper with their results. The evidence was clear in the last 2002 elections where changing the demography of constituencies in, for example, Zallaq region, altered the distribution of votes, see Exhibit (3).There were 2019 eligible voters in Zallaq of whom only 806 voters resided in Bahrain. The rest did not exist in reality. Around 60% of those who voted and who have never lived in Bahrain were from the group that had been granted citizenship while living abroad. 8% of the voters are naturalized people living in the country.  Only 32% of the voters were natives of Bahrain. Therefore, the natives did not have much to say in these elections; in fact, the government directed the ‘politically-naturalized’ group to their candidate. This group did not know whom they were voting for and for what issues or reasons; they had no interest in Bahrain at all; according to them, they only voted because their tribal chief instructed them to do so. In this way, the government had manipulated the elections results in favour of its candidates.The change in demography, in this deviant way, is definitely damaging the infant democracy in Bahrain.4. Naturalization for Security Reasons to Repress Native Dissidents:Most people who have been given Bahraini citizenship for political reasons were given jobs in security related departments such as Bahrain Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Interior and the National Guards. Most of them work as anti-riot police, political prison guards, and in the intelligence department for torturing the detainees. During the 90’s political unrest, the Government of Bahrain used this group extensively to suppress the political movement for freedom and democracy.These people were carefully selected for their sect and from areas notorious for their fanaticism, sectarian hate and tension such as Bluchestan, Yemen, and Deir-ez-Zur in Syria. Those people are historically known for their prejudice and intolerance.5. Naturalization to Create Social & Sectarian Division:The Government of Bahrain is using the ‘political naturalization’ card in creating social and sectarian division, practicing the old colonial tactic ‘divide & rule’. In this way, the government can weaken the social fabric of the society so there will be no strong unity among people with which people can have collective power to demand more freedom and democracy. Social unity and harmony is the nucleus for the development of any civil society.Over the past few years, there has been social chaos and clashes between natives and the ‘politically-naturalized’ people who do not respect the social norms or appreciate the Bahraini culture. Many of them have been convicted for robbery and other unethical manners. Among the famous clashes is the one that took place at Jaw village in 1997 when the former Amir and police interfered and solved the issue. In an recent incident last February, there were some clashes between the natives of Askar village and the ‘politically-naturalized’ people who constitute 24% of Askar village voters. The police had to interfere and put down the clashes.In conclusion, it is evident that ‘Political Naturalization’ has violated human rights
of Bahrainis in many ways. It is becoming part of the ‘institutional discrimination’ against people. It must be challenged and stopped.‘Political Naturalization’ is a weapon that is used against Bahrainis in their strife towards freedom and democracy.Once again, I urge you to help us to stop the Culturecide in Bahrain.

On behalf of the Bahraini people, I gratefully thank you for your kind attention.

Mr Ali Rabia Speech In The House of Lords 22 August 2003The Constitutional Crisis in BahrainBahrain enjoyed a short-lived parliamentary experiment in the years 1974 and 75 and I was an elected member in it. Our constitution of 1973 is a replica of the Kuwaiti one in which the executive power remains vested in the hand of the Amir and the legislative power is shared between the thirty elected members and the 12 ministers by virtue of their portfolio. This type of democracy awarded by Bahrain,s constitution is partial or what you call rudimentary and it does not allow a peaceful transition of power and the practice of multi-party system. Even though the elected |National Assembly enjoyed a monitoring power over the executive branch of the government and could pass laws. It is because of these powers that the ruling family felt uneasy towards this new experiment and decided to dissolve the parliament and suspend the country,s constitution on 26th August 1975 .Since the dissolution of the parliament Bahrain was run by Amiri Decrees and by implementing the state security law which was unanimously rejected by the parliament. As a result of this situation political stagnation persisted in the country and in the nineteen nineties we witnessed the emergence of the constitutional movement which was lead by the Popular |Petition. When His Highness Sheikh Hamad succeeded his father on the throne on March 1 , he took the initiative to put an end to the seven years of political struggle by declaring political and administrative reforms that would transform Bahrain to a constitutional monarchy. In this respect the government declared that a National Charter is to be voted on in order to pave the way for this democratic change. The National Charter contained two important amendments to be carried out to the constitution of 1973. The first amendment is to convert the Amirship to a Monarchy and the second one is to replace the unicameral parliament by a bicameral one.The democratic movement in Bahrain welcomed this step but because the relationship between the two chambers was not defined clearly and distinctly the opposition insisted that the government should make public what functions are related to each of the houses . The democratic movement believed that for a referendum to be constitutional it is imperative that the subject matter to be voted on is made crystal and understandable by the voters. And in its public statements the democratic movement threatened that unless the leadership makes a clarification towards this ambiguity the opposition will take the stance of boycotting the referendum . This point of view was delivered personally to His |Highness the Amir in his subsequent meetings with the opposition.In compliance with the opposition ,s demand and in order to win the confidence of the voters, the leadership made the following assurances:-1) The Deputy Amir was the first one to hold a press conference on 5th Feb. 2001 and to stress the point that only two amendments are to be carried out to the constitution 0f 1973 in order to make our constitution compatible with the institutional development , and that only the elected council will be the legislative power.2) On 7th Feb. and in his meeting with the religious leaders His Highness the Amir gave his signature of approval on what became known as the document of the clergy . This document states among other things the following conditions :-1) That the elected council will be the legislative power and that the appointed council will be merely for consultation.2) The constitution of 1973 will have superiority over the National Charter.3) That the due amendments shall be carried out within the mechanism of the constitution (article (104). At the end of this historic meeting the clergy requested His Highness the Amir that these assurances are made public to the people and as a result the Minister of Justice held a press conference on 9th Feb in which he emphasized that the elected council will remain as the legislative power and that the appointed one will act as a consultative chamber .After these formal assurances both the Committee for Popular Petition (C.P.P.) and Bahrain Freedom Movement issued their statements calling on the people to vote “Yes” to the National Charter. The referendum was carried out on 14th and 15th Feb. and because of the encouragement of the opposition the 98.4% of the voters voted in favor of the National Charter. On 25th Feb. 2001 the Amiri decree No. 5 for 2001 was issued calling for the formation of a committee to amend certain provisions of the constitution . It was headed by the Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs Sheikh Abdulla Bin Khalid Al-Khalifa. This committee is in violation of article 104 which states clearly that amendments to the constitution are to be done through the legislative power and should be approved by two thirds majority of the total elected members of the parliament.But the most rigorous violation is the amendment itself. Instead of passing the two amendments which were specified in the National Charter a new constitution was ratified and issued on 14th Feb. 2002. In the new constitution we discovered to our astonishment that the legislative power of the contractual constitution of 1973 has been usurped and that the appointed council is to enjoy the same legislative powers as the elected one. The failure of the political leadership to keep its promises and commitments came as a shock on the Bahraini community .On 3rd July the Amir issued new four laws of which one was the law of exercising the political rights . This law forbids the political societies from carrying out election campaign or sponsoring candidates or issuing election programs and it only restricted political participation to individuals. Another important development was the issuance of the law related to the establishment of the commission for financial control and audit. In instead of attaching this national commission to the elected chamber as it was in the constitution of 1973 it was blatantly annexed to the ruler. According to this law the executive branch itself looks after auditing the public finance. Furthermore the by-laws of the parliament and Shura councils have confiscated the right of the political societies to practice overt political activity and as per the statement of the state minister for Cabinet Affairs the societies “should engage in politics and do not work in politics.”Because of these regressive developments the constitutional movement and the people of Bahrain felt they were betrayed.In consequence of this development four major political societies boycotted the elections and have ultimately succeeded in winning 46% of the voters on their side.The present political situation in Bahrain:The Amir,s proposal that his political and constitutional reforms would expand democracy symbolized a vital fresh start in 2001 and the failure to implement this project has meant  a crisis of trust in the whole political system. As a result of this failure the political compromise went out of the window creating despair and frustration. Two months ago the parliament ended its first session and the people,s impression is that this institution is incapable of representing their hopes and ambitions or passing laws or exercising check and balance on the government. The citizens who endorsed their candidates in the last election have discovered for themselves that their MP,s are helpless because of the influence of the appointed council and now they are confused about their future role in the political process. This negative outcome lead to a steep decline in trust for the government. No doubt the new constitution has shattered our dreams of having the partial democracy of the seventies returned to this country. And in view of the current partnership of power and wealth it is impossible to build the basis of the constitutional monarchy which H. Highness the king promised to build . As a result of the outgoing Bahrain is getting more polarized because of the following:-1) The Shias which compromise nearly 2/3 of the population are still banned from working in
the defense force or the national guard.2) Unemployment is on the rise and Bahrain witnesses nowadays the gathering and assembly of the unemployed. For your information this problem was the one which triggered the uprising.3) Naturalization of Bedouins from Syria and of  other nationalities is continuing to put more pressure on the services of the government mainly the housing scheme, the national health , electricity and education.4) Absence of equal opportunity in employment , in education and in holding government positions.5) Corruption in high places is being publicly acknowledged and there is no indication that the authority will deal with it. These are complex and difficult issues that can only be resolved through a fully-fledged democracy and an independent parliament.On 25th July 2003 and in the Spectacular Newspaper His Highness the king announced that the reform project had been implemented in a positive manner to serve the people of Bahrain. But to our misfortune the type of democracy we have cannot be glossed as modernization and constitutional monarchy . Not only the sovereignty does not lie in the people but It also lacks the separation of the three powers as the legislative and the judiciary are dominated by the executive power. In other words election alone cannot bring democracy.Conclusion:We are now living in a phase in which the place for reform has been closed. And in order to open this door we have to resort to the united democratic movement. At present the major political societies which boycotted the election are joining forces together with the independent political figures in order to press for real constitutional reforms. This democratic movement as I imagine is going to seek recourse from the country,s constitution of 1973 and it will make sure that the future reforms bring the required constitutional monarchy and full democracy . This of course will not be possible without the honest and sincere support from the western democracies and the democratic forces all over the world and I am sure that they will extend their help.

Thank you for your patience

Unemployment, a culmination of a derailed reforms programme As the picketing by the unemployed enters its second week, many observers criticized the government for its brutal action against the pickets which resulted in the arrest of a number of unemployed people. The government response to the picketing actions organised by Bahrain’s unemployed citizens has caused great concerns about their future. The unemployed are motivated in their pickets by the deplorable conditions they are going through and the diminishing hope that surrounds them, with no clear policy to resolve their ordeal. The government needs to adopt a comprehensive approach to the issue of unemployment. The minimum pay scale is not sufficient to guarantee a decent standard of living, and cannot lead a successful future. The phenomenal rise in prices of basic commodities over the past two decades has not reflected in similar trends in payment scales. Furthermore, the legislations granting other Gulf citizen the right to buy land in the country has worsened the problem. With stronger purchasing powers, the Gulf citizens’ entry into the market has caused a sharp rise in land prices, thereby limiting the ability of normal and low pay citizens to buy land. The government has persistently attempted to portray the picketing as politically motivated. This is an attempt to cover its failure in addressing the issue with a reasonable and a realistic approach. The deterioration of this issue to the present level has been caused by decades of organised sectarian discrimination and uncontrolled influx of cheap labour from a number of Asian countries. This unbalanced approach and incomprehensive policy has consolidated the problem of unemployment. It indicates that the government is not serious to resolve the issue, thereby describing the pickets as unjustified. The unemployed have expressed their genuine demands for proper jobs, decent pay and social insurance to take a more productive role in society. Their demands also included allowing the employment of the majority of the population in the ministries of Defense and Interior. Will the government respond positively to these genuine demands? History tells us this will not be the case. Bahrain Freedom Movement

19 August 2003

Lord Avebury, the Vice-Chairman of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group cordially invites you to a seminar on Bahrain: The troubled “reforms”, the constitutional crisis and the demographic change11.00 am Friday 22nd August 2003Committee Room , 1 Abbey Gardens, London SW1 (Annexe to the House of Lords)Speakers: Hassan Mushaime’, Vice President, Al Wefaq National Islamic Society, Ali Rabi’a, National Democratic Action Society and a former MP and Dr Saeed Shehabi, Bahrain Freedom MovementFor further information please contact Lord Avebury on 020 7274 4617 or Mr

Hesabi on 0773998898