AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Ali al-Fayez, in this article, analyzes Bahrain's political developments within the framework of a long-term conflict between the protesting society and the ruling structure, and claims that political protests in this country have historical roots, social backing, and a specific intellectual framework.
At the beginning of the article, the author describes Bahrain's political movement as a movement with deep roots over the past decades, and claims that this movement possesses "political maturity" in its goals, methods, and behavior. He also does not consider the "February 14 Revolution" as lacking leadership or a wandering political project, and emphasizes that this movement, in his view, will continue as long as "oppression and tyranny" exist.
The author further claims that over the past 15 years, the discourse of the protest leadership has attempted to create an inclusive approach between Shiites and Sunnis, and has based its demands on concepts such as democracy, human rights, justice, and the rule of law.
Claim of the Dominance of Tribal Logic over Political Structure
An important part of the article is dedicated to severe criticism of Bahrain's ruling structure. The author believes that what he calls "tribal logic" is incompatible with the concepts of the modern state, nationalism, human rights, and international politics, and considers the political demands of the opposition as a threat to the existing structure.
Al-Fayez claims that the government, to confront the opposition, has resorted to narratives that, according to him, were formed under conditions of detention and torture, and were then used to prove security claims. He thus concludes that part of the government's official narrative about the opposition is, in his view, invalid.
The author also claims that pressure against Bahrain's Shiite majority over time has gone beyond the security domain and encompassed various areas of social life, from personal security and economic status to social standing, political participation, cultural identity, and ultimately religious issues. He describes this trend as an attempt to weaken people's political participation and prevent the formation of a state based on public participation.
Claim of "Ethnic and Sectarian Elimination"
One of the sharpest parts of the article is where the author, citing his own interpretation of developments in Bahrain, compares the current situation to what he calls "ethnic and sectarian cleansing" and "uprooting Shiism." He claims that even Shiite currents with a more moderate approach are not immune from pressure if they oppose the government's policies.
Al-Fayez further incorporates Bahrain's foreign policy and its relations with the United States and the Zionist regime into his analysis, linking this process to the Abraham Accords, the liberal capitalist model, and what he calls the "Greater Israel project." This section of the article reflects the author's political stance and analysis, and does not necessarily mean independent confirmation of these claims.
The Confrontation of Two Political Projects from the Author's Perspective
The author then claims that Bahrain's ruling structure lacks the legitimacy and capability to face free elections and a fair judicial process. In contrast, he speaks of a project to establish a "modern state" that, according to him, should be based on the principles of Bahrain's Muslim society, justice, the rule of law, and political participation.
In this framework, the author does not consider the main issue merely a disagreement between the government and the opposition, but rather a confrontation between two models of governance: on one side, a structure that, in his view, is based on elimination and political control; and on the other, a society that seeks greater participation in running the country and the establishment of justice and law.
Criticism of Part of the Shiite Current and the Elite
Another part of the article is dedicated to the author's criticism of individuals who, according to him, despite having the title of "Shiite" or "elite," have sided with the government. Al-Fayez asks why some individuals and currents who identify themselves as Shiite, nationalist, secular, or realist, in the face of what the author considers the government's repressive policy, support the ruling structure.
He describes these individuals as lacking significant social standing, and claims that some of them have effectively become the government's political tools. In this section, the author uses very harsh and contemptuous language against these currents, considering them as individuals who either do not understand the dimensions of the political game or lack the ability to independently influence it.
Criticism of the Concept of "Secularism" and "Realism"
Al-Fayez further attacks critics who call for a "review" of the opposition's discourse or the adoption of a "realistic" approach. In his view, if a political current has a national and peaceful approach, calling on it to retreat in the face of a repressive system cannot be considered realism.
He also opposes the concept of "secularism" raised by some currents, saying that secularism, if it leads to the elimination of the will of the majority or the prosecution of religious leaders solely because of a security interpretation of their beliefs, cannot claim to defend human values.
In the final section of the text, the author engages in a religious discussion about the concept of "Taqiyyah" (dissimulation). He criticizes what he calls "pretending to be religious" and a different interpretation of the concept of Taqiyyah, and claims that some individuals, without having sufficient knowledge in jurisprudence, comment on issues that have been discussed by prominent jurists.
Al-Fayez emphasizes that, in his view, the correct interpretation of the concept of Taqiyyah must be based on the views of jurists and religious authorities, and this concept cannot be turned into a tool for justifying political positions.
Overall, this article is an analytical-political text with a strong stance against the Bahraini government, presenting the protests and the February 14 movement as a deeply rooted, national movement based on political and legal demands.
The author, in contrast, accuses the ruling structure of moving toward the elimination or weakening of opponents by relying on security pressures, restricting political participation, and exerting pressure on the Shiite community.
**************
End/ 345E
