A paper for the Gulf Cultural Centre from March 13, 1995 by Eric Avebury

1. Democracy and human rights:
can they be achieved in the Gulf?
GulfCultural Centre
March 13,1995
By Erie Avebury

2. You have asked metospeakaboutdemocraqr and human rights,twoideasthatappealto human
beings'deepestinstinctsaboutwhatis rightandjust.Evenin societieswhere neither democracy nor
human rightsexist,lip serviceis paid tothem bythe rulers,asit wasin thecommunistworld during
thethree quartersofa centurybetween Lenin'sOctoberrevolution and the collapseofthe Soviet
empire under Gorbachev.The apartheid regime in South Africa pretended to be a democracy when
onlythe whitescould vote.The military rulersofNigeria pretend thqrare only stayingin powerso as
toensure asmooth transition to a genuine democracy.TheIndiansboastoftheirclaim to be the
largestdemocracyin the world,thoughemergency rule has prevailedin Kashmirfor6ve years,and
they blandly denythat halfa million troopsand paramilitariesin thatterritory are guilty ofgross and
persistentviolationsofhuman rights.
Weassociate human rights with democracy,and we havea tendencyto believeth^alwaysgo
together. Americans are specially prone totheidea thata country which has elections mustbefairly
high upin the league tableofhmnan rightsperformance,asonecan seefrom the State Department's
CountryReportson Human RightsPractisesfor 1994.Thesection onTurkey beginsbysayingthat
Turkeyisa constitutionalrepublic with a multipartyParliament(the Grand NationalAssembly)
which elects the President.
Guatemala'sentrystarts withthesentence
Guatemala's1985Constitution callsforelection by universalsuffrage ofa one-term Presidentanda
unicameralCongress.
Sothatwhateverfiightfitlcrimesare detailed in thefollowing paragraphs,thefirstimpression created
in the reader's mind is thatthestate underdiscussion is not doing too badly,whereasthe truth isthat
Turkey isthe worsttortiuer inthe world,and one ofthe worstfor extrajudicial killings and arbitrary
detentions. Guatemala may haveimproved slightly,butthefact is that manyofthe human rights
problems which afflicted the people during thirty yearsofmilitary dictatorship still remain after 10
yearsofcivilian rule.
Thusitisa matterofconunon observation thatthe mere holding ofmulti-party elections is nota
guaranteethat human rights will be observed. Noristhe absence ofmulti-party electionsa clear
indicatorofa bad human rights performance.Eritreaand Ugandaareexample ofsingle-party states
which have reasonable recordson human rights.In Eritrea,during 1994the Governmentcontinued to
havestrong popular support,and it generally respected human rights.Uganda allows contested
elections,though noton a party basis,and there again President Museveni is well liked becauseofhis
effective leadership after a period ofdictatorship and mismle.In both countries,democratic structures
are being developed and encouraged with the aim ofpromoting the maximum degree ofself-rule at
local level.Theyare cautiousabouttheintroduction ofpolitical parties,however,because ofthe
tendencyin Africafor partiesto beorganised on ethnic or tribal lines. Asthe Uganda High
Commissioner putsit
7n a country where there are two, three orfourstrong tribes, thishascaused more divisions, hatreds,
encouragedinternalconflictsand hasoften ledto killingsand war. Thesystem tendsto be
antagonisticandconfrontational.Ittendsto highlightandemphasise whatdividesthe people rather
than what unitesthem. Thesystem encouragessectarian tendencies.And because the system is built
on 'winnertakesall' youfindpoorcountrieswithfew able andeducatedpeople leaving verygood
peopleoutofgovernment...'^
Theextremeexample ofthe consequencesofpolitical divisions along tribal lines isRwanda,butthere
are manyotherco^ictsin Africa where partiesorfactions with tribalpowerbasesillustratethe
'Professor George NB Kirya,Democracyin Africa, University ofOxford Foreign Service
Programme Lecmre,October 20, 1992.

3. dangers highlighted byProfessor Kirya.In Angola,thedisputed electionsofSeptember 1992,
ostensibly between the political partiesofdosSantos' MPLA and Savimbi's UNITA were notso much
on ideological lines,butlargely a personaland ethnic power struggle,which led to the death ofover
100,000 people.The homicidal aligiunentofethnicorclanforcesinto political partiescan alsobe
seeninextremeformin Somalia orLiberia.Onecould say thathuman rightsareeven more neglected
in societies where allthestatestructures have broken down than underthedictatorshipsofSamuel
Doe or Siad Barre.
Myfirst proposition is,therefore,that weshould notconsider Westminsterstyledemocracy asa model
tobeapplied rigidly everywhereelsein the world.Theessential principle isto give peoplethe largest
possiblesay in the managementoftheirown affairs,and the notion ofrepresentative political parties
is notthe only wayofachievingthatobjective.Indeed,it may bea negativeforcein societies where
religious,tribal or clan rivalriesare dangerously strong,and there are no traditionsofresolving them
by peaceful processes.
ProfessorKirya mentioned the'wiimertakesall' principle which isafeature ofBritish democracy.If
candidate A gets34%ofthe vote,candidateB 33.5%,and candidate C32.5%,two thirdsofthe voters
are dissatisfied withthe results,and something likethis happensthroughoutBritain. Weend up with
a governmentthatissupported bylessthan two outoffive people,yetone that pretends to have a
mandatefrom the people. Allsortsofpoliciesareimplemented againstthe willofthe majority,and
the presentgeneration ofConservatives haveforgotten the dictum ofoneoftheir greatleadersofa
previousage.Lord Salisbury,who wasPrime Minister atthe turn ofthe century:
Bya democracyIdo not mean asociety in which seven men maytellsix men to do astheyplease.
The tyranny ofthe majority is indeed imdemocratic. Worse still,in Britain we have been ruled by a
minorityforthe last 16 years,and that is totally unacceptable. Wecertainly would not wantto export
this characteristicofoiu*system to other countries,where itcould be even more harmful. There has to
besome give andtakebetween rulersand ruled,and this is particularly essential whensome ofthe
ruled belongto linguistic,ethnicor religious groups having theirown needsand aspirations.In
Cyprus,SriLanka,Guyana and Northern Ireland,forexample,hmnan rightsand political problems
arose becauselarge minoritiesfeltthey were being repressed.The electoral systems in those countries
encouraged the organisation ofparties on religiousorethnically separatelines,and thusaccentuated
the polarisation oftheirsocieties.
So thesecond proposition Icommend to your attention isthatdemocraticsystemscan best promote
human rights,and particularly the rightsofminorities,iftheyarebased on electoral systems which
foster cooperative ratherthan confrontationalformsofpolitical organisation.
In Islamic states,the principle ofdemocracy is powerfully reinforced by the Holy Koran.Islam
emphasises the equality ofall human beings,and the duty ofgovenunentsto consult with their
citizens. The First Caliph ofIslam said in hisfirstaddress:
You have made meyourleader,althoughIam in no waysuperiortoyou. Co-operate with me when I
go right;correct me when Ierr;obey meso longasIfollow the commandmentsofGodandhis
Prophet;butturn awayfrom me whenIdeviate.^
Thisshowsthatthe authority ofthe Caliph wasderived fi-om the people,under God,and thatthey
even had a righttochange him.One would expect,therefore,that mechanisms would befound in
Islamiccountriesforimplementing those principles. Yetin many partsoftheIslamic world,
hereditary rulersexercise power withoutany inputfrom the people,or with token inputsfrom
nominated councils.Ifwe arc all brothersand sisters,the representatives,vice-regentsand deputies of
God on earth,we might notagree to the gross disparities ofwealth and power which existin the
world today,and ifwe had democraticsystems,we mightexercise our power as vice-regentsto redress
these inequalities.Onthe other hand,we mightbe persuaded to delegate our powers to the existing
^ A K Brohi,Islam and Human Rights,in The ChallengeofIslam,IslamicCouncil,London, 1978.

4. nilers. The pointis thatin many states,thatchoicedocs notexist,and the factthatfreedom of
expression isseverely restricted insomeofthosestatesgives reason to believe that people would like
to makechangesifth^ had the meansto doso.
Freedom ofexpression andfreedom ofassemblyare,ofcourse,essential to any democratic process.
They havetoexistwell beforetherecan begenuine elections,becausein asociety where previously
there has been nodiscussion ofchange,public opinion needstime todevelop.Thesefreedoms do not
existin the Gulf,and there is a resistance tochangeon the partofthe rulers which may not bein their
own bestinterests.Itis notpossible to imagine thatacollection ofstates in thatregion will remain
absolute monarchiesin a world where autocratsaretumbling everywhereelse,and the principlesof
democracy and human rights have made,and are making,slow butsteady progress.South Africa and
Namibiaarefree;the repubUcsoftheformer Soviet Union are now independentstatesand are
painfullydevelopingtheirown institutions;the military dictatorshipsofthesouthern cone ofLatin
America havebeensweptaway;the nationsofEastern Europe are free,though some are more
democraticthan others. Couldthe Gulfremain insulatedfrom these trends?Itisvciydoubtful,
particularly when manyofthecitizensofthosestates have received highereducation abroad,and see
forthemselves whatexceptionalkindsofgovernmentthey have.So the question is, whether there can
bea peacefultransition to moreconstitutionalformsofmonarchy,or whetherthe changesthatare
bound to occur will be achieved only through violence.
All the statesin the region sharesimilarcharacteristics.They are all more or less absolute
monarchies,with nogenuinelyrepresentative institutions,but withsome recentattemptsto create
bodiesthatgivethe appearanceofconsultation. Noneofthem allow political parties,all have tightly
controlled broadcasting,licensing ofthe press,and closecontrolovertheformation ofNGOs.In all of
them,too,there arerumblingsofdiscontent,both on the question ofdemocracy and thatofhuman
rights.The effortsto push the regimesin the direction ofgreater participation inseveral ofthe states
have led tothe useofrepressive tactics by the ruling dlites,and in turn has intensified the demandsfor
reform.
Kuwaitatleast hasan elected National Assembly,but with very limited powers.Thefranchise is
restricted,and in particular it excludes women and naturalised citizens.In Oman the Sultan
established an appointed S9-seat Consultative Council,or Majlis Ash-Shura,which has noformal
legislative powers,but may question government ministers.In Qatar,the Amirconsiderstheopinions
ofleading citizens,expressed through the Advisory Council,an appointed body.The King ofSaudi
Arabia hasa hand picked Consultative Council,with no powers. Allits meetingsexceptthefirst,in
December 1993,have been in secret.Bahrain,similarly, hasa 30-member Consultative Cotmcil,or
Majlis Al-Shura,all ofwhose meetingsare closed to the public.In theUAEthere isthe Federal
National Council,a body ofadvisers appointed bythe rulersofeach emirate. Again,it has no
legislative authority butcan merely question ministersand make policy recommendations.
All ofthese monarchiesarcrun as ifthey were the personalestates ofthe rulersand theirfamilies.
The relatives oftheautocrats have allthe bestjobsincluding government ministries,they enjoy
special privileges,including immunityfrom thecriminal law,and they are all enormously rich atthe
expense ofthe public purse.Itis really very surprising thatsuch a concentration ofpowerin the hands
ofafew &miliesthroughouttheregion has notaroused a great deal more resentment,and one can
only surmise thata high standard ofliving resultingfrom theexploitation ofoil and gas has had the
effectofmuting public opposition to the rulers. It may be thatthefallin the price ofoil,and the
disappointmentofeconomicexpectations,has been a contributoryfactor in the recent upsurgeof
demandsfor human rightsand democracy in the region.
In Saudi Arabia,aselsewherein the region,there has been particularly strict control over non
governmentalorganisationsofall kinds.The rulerscannot afford to allow any political activity or
discussion,which mightcall their authority into question or highlightthe serious abusesofhitman
rights.Theformation ofthe Committeefor Defence ofLegitimate Rightsin May 1993,with the
supportofleading academics andjurists was therefore a major landmark.In spite ofstrenuousefforts
bythe governmenttointimidatethe organisers,including arrests and dismissalsfrom theirjobs,raids
on theofhcesofpeople suspected ofsympathising with the Committee,and hostage-taking,they only

5. succeeded in driving itoverseas.The CDLR now publishes materialfrom London,faxingitto Saudi
Arabia,whereit isa crimeto read the bulletinsorto be in possession ofthem.
Withthe adventofthefaxand theemail,it hasbecome impossibleforastate to preventitscitizens
from receivinginformationfrom the outside world,and transmitting material backsothat people
know whatis happening.The ready availabilityoflow cost portablecomputers,internal highspeed
modemsand easy to use encryption and communicationssoftware hastipped thescalesinfevourof
human rightscampaignersand against governments which need to conceal theirtreatmentoftheir
own citizens.Itiseven possibleto digitisevideorecordingsand transmitthem overthe ordinary
telephone network,and thesmallvideocameras now available would allow monitorsto getfilm of
demonstrations,forexample,unobtrusivelyand with minimum risk tothe monitors.Inthe Gulf,
which hasgood telecomsftacilities,the opportunitiesfor gettingthiskind ofmaterial promptly tothe
outside world,and the media,arefavourable.
Unfortunately,in thecase ofSaudi Arabia,and to a lesserextentthe Gulfasa whole,the wider
interestsofthe westin generaland the USin particular are assumed toindicatethesoftpedallingof
concernsthatwould otherwisebeexpressed on theavailableevidence.Asthe Washington-based
Human Rights Watch putit;
Apparentlysubordinating human rightsprinciplestostrategicandcommercialinterests,the
increasedlevelofmilitaryandcommercialactivityduring theyear wasnotaccompanied bypublic
candorin assessing the human rightsrecordofSaudiArabic^.
When senior o£5cials,includingPresident Clinton,and the SecretariesofState,Defense,Commerce
and Treasury visited Saudi Arabia,they did not mention human rights.The Saudis made sure that
Washington keptquietby placing hugeorders with UScontractors,tothe extentthat Saudi Arabia
accountsfor30%ofUSdeifencesales.Therewerealsoordersfor$6billion worthofciviljetsfor
Boeing and McDonell Douglas,and$4 billionfor A T&Ttoexpand the telephone network.
TheBritish,too,have won bigdefenceordersfrom the Saudis,and that makes usreluctantto
criticise. Nobodyconsiders whether theenormousflowsofarmsintothe region may notthemselves be
destabilising,or whetherpoliticalchangesin the region,bringing human rightsimprovementswith
them,would betterserve ourownlong term interests,asthey would theinterestsofthe people
themselves. With the benefitofhindsight,onecansee thatit was nota good idea tosupportthe Shah
or Saddam Hussain,yetwe arestill makingthesame mistake.
In correspondence with Ministersatthe Foreign Ofilce whodeal with the region,they make it plain
that human rightsareconsidered in relation to our wider political and strategic interests.Theseare
neverclearly spelled out,butifthe peace and stability ofthe region isofparamountimportance,we
should bedoing everything possible to promotetransitionstowards democraticsystemsthat will
command the loyalty ofthe peoples.
Personally,1 believe thata greatopportunity was missed atthe time ofDesertStorm,when theallies
could have removed Saddam Hussain,with the help ofthe Shi'as in thesouth and the Kurds in the
north.Iam notsayingthisonly with thebenefitofhindsight;Idid argue the case both inHansard and
in correspondence withthe Foreign Secretary in March 1991.Notonly would thepeopleofIraq have
saved,butthe adventofa democratic governmentin Baghdad would have had a powerful
demonstration effectonthe neighbours.Itcould havebeen argued thatit wasa necessary condition
for thefulfilmentofResolution688,though DouglasHurd said this would not have been accepted by
theallies,including Saudi Arabia,no doubt.It woitld hardly suitthe King and hisfamilyto have a
democracyfor a neighbour.Four yearsdownthe line,Saddam has still notcomplied with the demand
thatrepression ofthecivilian population end,and thatinternational humanitarian organisationsbe
granted access to all those in need ofassistance.
^ Hurrtan Rights Watch World Report 1995,Washington, 1995,304.

6. Thatwasanexceptionalsituation andanexceptionalopportuniQr.Butthereoughtto beotherwaysof
influencing thecourseofeventsinthe Gulf,in consultation withthe representativesofdemocratic
forcesintheregion,becauseofourlong presencethereandthe persistenceofhistoricaland cultural
links with the peoples.
Britaineffectivelycontrolled Bahrainfor 150years,sincethe GeneralTreatyofPeace wassigned
betweenthemin 1820.In 1923they wentsofarastoremovetheruling Sheikh ofhisduties,and to
introducesomeadministrativereformstoend an arbitrarysystem ofgovenunent.There wereeven
municipalelectionsin 1919.Buttheimperialists resisted demandsforan elected Parliament
originating in 1938,through a group ofnationaliststhatincluded Saad Al-Shamlan.TheBritish
forcibly deported them toIndia.
Between 1954and 1956,the nationalist movementcameto lifeagain,when a groupof120dignitaries
elected eightrepresentativestotheHigh Executive Committee,which broadly represented allsections
oftheBahraini people.The movementdemanded an elected parliament,written laws,labour union
and othersocialjustice principles.In 1956,threeoftheeightleaderswerearrestedandforcibly
deported to St.Helena.Th^were AbdulRahman Al-Bakir,Abdul Aziz Al-Shamlan(theson ofSaad
Al-Shamlan who wasforcibly deported to Indiain 1938)and Abd Ali Al-Ulaiwat.There wasa heated
debateinthe British HouseofCommonsasto thelegality ofthatoperation.Thethree werethen
released afterfiveyearsintheprison cellsofSt.Helenaand werecompensated bythe British
Governmentfor wrongfuldetention.Otherleadersspent morethan a decadein Bahrainjails.
Since 1957Bahrain has been underastateofemergency.Theopposition had to go underground and
some wereforced toemigrate.In 1965 another uprising wasignited bythe workersofthe oil refinery
(Bapco)and schoolstudents.TheBritish army wasdeployed and the movementwasquelled.
Following thoseevents,the SpecialBranch wasre-structuredand given morepowerstosuppress
opponents.
In 1968,theLabour Governmentofthe United Kingdom decided to pulloutall British Forcesfrom
eastofSuezincluding Bahrain.ThestatusofBahrain wasbroughtteforethe UN to settle an Iranian
claim to theislands.In May 1970,the UN Security Councilimanimously approved the verdictofthe
PersonalRepresentative ofthe Secretary General,Mr.Winspeare Guicciardi,whostated:
"The BahrainisImetwere virtually unanimousin wantingafullyindependentsovereign state. The
greatmajorityaddedthatthisshouldbe an Arab State".
Thisfinding was putinto effect withtheformalemergenceofBahrain asan independentstate in 1971
To gain publicsupport,the rulingfamily,Al-Khalifa,allowed an election in 1972for a Constituent
Assembly.The Assembly debated a draftconstitution that waslatter ratified by the Amir(Head of
State)Sheikh Isa bin Salman Al-Khalifa,and by membersofthe Constituent Assembly.The 1973
Constitution paved the wayforelection ofthe National Assembly,consistingof30elected members
and 15 ex-ofhcio(appointed)govenunent ministers. After 18 months,the Amirdissolved theshort
lived parliament,when itrefiisedto passthe govenunent's"State Security Actof1974".Thislaw,
which thencameintoforce by decree,empowerstheinterior minister toorderthe administrative
detention ofany politicalopponent.And ffthe defendantis broughtbefore a courtand convicted,he
orshe hasnori^tofappe^againstaverdictthatisbasedonextractedconfessions,usually under
torture.
Article 1 ofthe Decree Law on State Security MeasiuesofOctober 22,1974,to give it itsfiill title,
providesthat
'Ifthereisseriousevidence thataperson hasmadestatements,committedacts, undertaken activities
or made contacts which are damagingto theinternalor,externalsecurityofthe country,orto the
country'sreligiousor nationalinterests,orto itsfundamentalstructure,orsocialoreconomic
systems,oramount to discord, which affects, orcould affect, relationsbetween thepeople andthe
government,or between the variousinstitutionsofthestate, between sectorsofthepeople,those

7. workingin establishmentsorcompanies,or which aim toassistin thecommission ofactsofsabotage
orharmfulpropaganda,orthe dissemination ofhereticalprinciples'.^
that person may be detained for up to three years,which isthen renewablefor an indefinite number of
periodsofthree years,withoutbeing eithercharged or tried.
Sincethe dissolution oftheparliament,the governmenthasignored the Constitution,which provides
thatalaw only comesinto operation when the parliamentand the Amirapprove it.The Constitution
also statesthatBahrain may notbe withouta parliamentfor more than two months.
Under the provisionsofthe State Security Law,Bahrain hasdeprived ofmany human rights.
Accordingthe USState Department,
The main abusesincludedarbitraryandincommunicado detention;involuntaryexile;the absence of
impartialinspection ofdetention andprisonfacilities;some instancesofabuse ofdetainees;
restrictionson therightto afairpublictrial, especiallyin theSecurity Court;andrestrictionson
freedom ofspeech andpress,freedom ofassemblyandassociation, women'srights, and worker
rights. Asapracticalmatter,thepeople donothave the rightto changetheirgovernment.^
Aftertheliberation ofKuwaitin 1991,whatappeared tobea new politicalenvironment paved the
wayfor a groupofBahraini leading personalities toinitiatedemandsfor political reforms.In
November 1992,himdredsofintellectualscomingfirom all walksoflifesigneda petition that was
submittedto the Amircalling on him to reinstatethe parliamentand restoretheconstitution of1973.
The governmentdisregarded the plea,and instead the Amirappointed a powerlessconsultative
councilof30 people,with no legislativeor monitoring powersand whose resolutionsare not
mandatoiy.
In October 1994,a new initiative developed the 1992 petition. Thistimethe pro-democracy
campaignerscollected morethan25,000signatures(voters in 1973 were 17,000only) from Bahraini
citizens above 18yearsofage.The petition wassupposed to have been submitted on December 16,
Bahrain's NationalDay.This year wasalsothetiunofBahrain to hostthe GulfCooperation Coimcil
sununit.Thegoveriunentwanted to obstructthesubmission and gavethe green lighttotheinterior
ministry to arbitrarily detain and persecutecampaigners.Some weredismissedfrom theirjobs.For
example,Mr Saeed Al-Asbool,an engineering manager with the MinistryofWorks,wassacked after
refusing to remove his namefrom the petition.
It was also atthattime I had been hoping to visit Bahrain,originally on the invitation ofthe
goverrunent.1 had gotasfar as booking theflightand waslessthan a weekfrom mydeparture date of
November5 when the Ambassador's ofticetelephoned to say that it was notconvenienttiming,
because they wereengaged in preparationsfor theforthcoming meeting ofthe GCC,and would 1 defer
thevisit untilsome time the new year.Ithen suggested January 5,butafterseveraltelephone
reminders,I wastold that was nota good date either.
Demonstrationsthen started on December5,after the anestofa popularfigure.Sheikh Ali Salman,
who wasinstrumentalin gathering signaturesfrom the public. The interior ministry refused to listen
to a delegation led by Sheikh Hamza Al-Deiri askingtocalm downthesituation by releasing Sheikh
Ali Salman.Infactthe response wasthat the government had decided to use an"iron fist" policy to
deal with pro-democracy campaigners.
Since December S:
• eight people have been killed,one ofthem imder torture,one ofthem a65 yearsold whodied at
home after receiving a harsh beatingfrom police,another a one year old who was poisoned by
police teargas,and the restshotdead in the streets.
*Bahrain:violationsofhuman rights. Amnesty International, MDE 11/01/91,May9,1991
'USState Department,Country Reportson Human RightsPractices 1994.

8. • scoresofpeople have been injured including elderly peoplein theirseventies.Theseare denied
proper medical treatmentandfkce persecution.Thepolice used manyformsofteargas,white
powder(thatcausesvomitingand skin irritation),bulletsthatexplode and spread hundredsof
glassy particlesinthe victim'sbodyandforthefirsttimesinceindependence:liveammunition
• morethan 2,000 havebeendetained including children.The prisonsarefully packed andazoo
(MahmeyyatAl-Areen)hasbeen converted toa detentioncamp.
• Sheikh Ali Salman(whosearrestsparked-o£fthe uprising),Sheikh Hamza Al-Deiri(wholed the
delegation tothe interior ministry)and Seyed Haider Al-Setri wereforcibly deported on January
IS.Thqr arrived inLondonafter2days.HieBahraini governmentsentitsforeign minister.
Sheikh Mohammed bin Mubarak Al-KhalifatoLondon on January 27,1995 to meetthe British
Foreign Secretary,theRtHon DouglasKurd,and demand thatthethree leadersbe denied refugee
status.
• many other activists werelaterforcibly deportedfrom Bahrain.Amnesty International had a
campaign againstforcibledeportationfrom Bahrain and published a major reportin 1993.
• demonstrationscontinued during Ramadan.On February 11,12and 13 hundredsofwomen
(wives,mothers,sistersand relativesofprisoners)gathered infrontofthe CourtsBuilding
(ministry ofjustice)in the Diplomatic Areaofthecapital,Manama.Many were injured by police
use offorce,one ofthem a middle aged woman,Fatima Abdulla Ali,whose son Assad Ashoor
hasbeen detained since early December.
Now,there isan impasse,afterthe goverrunent'srefusalto release prisoners,to appointacommittee
to investigate the arbitrary killing ofcitizens andtoaddressthequestion ofrestoring the parliament
and constitution. Unusually,the Amir has noteven agreed to acceptthe petition,though it iscouched
in moderate and respectfulterms.Itsimply callsfortherestoration ofthe 1973 Constitution and
Parliamentasthe best wayto harnesstheenergiesand talents ofthe peoplein addressingthe serious
problems&ced by Bahrain today:worsening unemployment,chronicinflation,businessstagnation,
the citizenshipissue,restrictionson the libertiesofthe people,the absence offreedom ofexpression
and thecontrolson the press.
In thecircumstancesofBahrain,democracyand human rightsare closely linked together,because it
has been thelack ofany popularrepresentation which hasallowed repressivedecreesto be enacted.
Conversely,it is expected that with the restoration ofthe Parliamentand the Constitution,those
decrees will be declared ultra vires and will fall.
Ifonelooksatthe monarchiesofEurope,there is an importantlesson to be learned.Those which
resisted changeand tried to hang on to absolute power weresweptaside,while those which moved
with theflow ofconstitutional reform were preserved.The CzarofRussia,the EmperorsofGermany
and Austria,the BourbonsofNaples havevanished,butthe monarchiesofSweden,Norway,Holland
and Britain stillfloiuish.CharlesI ofEngland and LouisXVI ofFrance were executed berauseth^r
couldn'tbearto allow representative institutions more power,roughly,than the National Assembly of
Kuwaitenjoystoday. The American historian Barbara Tuchman madethe pointin The March of
Folly:
fVe allknow,from unendingrepetitionsofLordActon'sdictum,thatpowercorrupts. We are less
aware thatit breedsfolly, thatthepowertocommandfrequentlycausesfailure to think.....Ifthe mind
isopen enough toperceive thatagiven policyisharmingratherthan serving self-interest, andself-
confidentenough to acknowledge it, and wise enough to reverse it, thatisasummitin the artof
government^
*BarbaraTuchman,The March ofFolly,MichaelJoseph,1984,32.

9. The monarchsofthe Gulfmightperceivethat Canute-like resistancetothedemandsoftheir people
for moderatedemocraticreformscan onlyend in disastertothemselvesandfortheircitizens.Thqr
will not preventtheinevitable,butthey coidd make itacostly result,in termsofeconomic resoiu'ccs
and human lives.Ortheycould decideto makethe transitionan orderly process,managed
cooperatively betweenthe rulersand the people.That wouldindeed beanactofstatesmanshipaswell
asofenlightenedself-interest.