7th Aug, 2012 –
Matar Ibrahim Matar, a prominent figure from Al-Wefaq, has stressed the opposition’s readiness for dialogue. Conversely the King and Crown Prince in their statements and speeches spare no effort in emphasizing the importance of dialogue. This all sounds brilliant, but if this is the case, why are there so few signs of dialogue actually happening?
One possibility is that certain sides do not want dialogue, but don’t want to appear to be responsible for the deadlock. This maybe why we see so many conditions being placed on dialogue: “We want dialogue, but only once the government has resigned”; “We want dialogue, but only after all prisoners have been released”; “We want dialogue, but, but, but….”
It is not only the opposition, which is guilty of this. Loyalists groups like the National Unity Gathering have at times indicated that they reject entering dialogue while there is street violence, terrorism and instability – although many would argue that these are precisely the evils which dialogue is supposed to halt.
It is clear that one obstacle for the opposition is their own lack of unity. There are some relative moderates, perhaps like Matar Ibrahim Matar himself, who genuinely think that dialogue is the way forward; but they would lose the support of the radicals and hardliners if they entered dialogue.
In a major speech a couple of months ago the leading Wefaq figure Ali Salman failed to mention dialogue at all, dismissing the very prospect of dialogue with the comment: “Our legitimate demands cannot be debated by anyone from this regime” and making threats about intensifying the use of force if these “legitimate demands” weren’t met in full.
This raises the question of the value of dialogue with a dis-unified opposition: What would be the point of dialogue with opposition figures who don’t enjoy the support of major parts of the protest movement and wouldn’t be able to deliver on their promises? However, perhaps wider rows of the opposition could be drawn in as dialogue progressed.
Another possibility is that dialogue is already going on, but we are not being told about it. We often hear hints and rumours about such discussions; although it is difficult to know whether these are substantive or just “talks about talks”. Are leading figures on all sides in contact with each other; or are these just proxy figures and independents throwing out the occasional trial balloon and seeing whether it floats?
Does dialogue matter? The opposition has reached an impasse; it can call people out on the streets week after week, but not in a way that can force Bahrain’s leaders to their knees. It would seem that some of the wiser heads within the opposition have realized this fact and know that they need some kind of honorable exit.
Likewise, the Bahraini authorities have introduced major reforms to the security and justice sectors and have fundamentally shifted the balance of power between the Parliament and Government through important constitutional amendments. However, although many of these reforms are the fruit of last year’s National Dialogue, because they were implemented unilaterally, Al Wefaq of course rejected these moves. In order for reforms to enjoy popular legitimacy they need to gain the blessing and approval of broad rows of society through a process of dialogue.
Therefore, it is difficult to see Bahrain emerging from this current impasse any time soon without such a dialogue.
Thus, we hope that these few voices of sanity within the opposition will gradually prevail and the King and Crown Prince’s calls for dialogue and reconciliation will be heeded; not by lame responses of “We want dialogue, but….”; but rather by genuine political will and readiness to make the brave and difficult compromises which our society will need to witness if we are to get ourselves out of our current state of affairs.