Constitutional legitimacy of the king under the microscope of February 14th movement – Would the King step down? ….. Part 4 of 4
11/09/2012م - 4:21 م - 1549 قراءة
Bahrain Mirror (Exclusive): The obvious result which was shown by the activity of the February 14th, is that there is a king named Hamad bin Isa neglected a text of the constitutional oath "I swear by Allah the Almighty to respect the Constitution and the laws of the State, and defend the liberties of the people, interests and properties, and to safeguard the independence and territorial integrity". The microscope of the February 14th uprising has shown the King's negligence of the oath, as well as the date of February 14th, 2002 showed the abolition of the 'Contractual' Constitution by the king, and Bassiouni's report came as an attempt to heal the legitimacy that the King had damaged by such negligence.
The opposition had given the King an opportunity to heal his legitimacy, but he did not do that during the last eight months that followed the release of Bassiouni's report, what are the options before him now? This is what we are trying to answer by investigating the performance of the King biography that contradicts the constitutional oath.
The King officially has full responsibility for national sovereignty. What did the King of Bahrain do about that sovereignty?
Within a year and a half, the King has actively indulged in compromising the state sovereignty and independence under the pretext of 'Gulf Union' and sometimes under the 'Bilateral union between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia' publicly or secretly, and subjected himself to the superior sovereignty decisions of mighty and wealthy neighbours, just to avoid allowing the people to take part in the management of the country. The King showed during this period willingness to be a prince for a distasteful province with no authority, rather than to be a loved king sharing power with his people.
The King had taken the most serious step that harmed the country's sovereignty, allowing the entry of the GCC armies, not to counter an external enemy that had invaded the country, but to counter a popular internal protest movement. That took place through a royal decree which he personally issued.
The protests were shown as a foreign plot and as if that there was an imminent invasion. He announced that at a meeting with the leadership of Peninsula Shield Forces on 20 March 2011. The King said that a foreign plot was defeated, referring to Iran "the preparation for this plot has been in place since twenty to thirty years, and began to be implemented when conditions were agreeable" before going on to say: "I declare here the failure and death of this conspiracy"
This was confirmed by the King without the slightest doubt, as a justification for the unprecedented of allowing foreign armies into the country, while Bassiouni's report - commissioned by the King himself - proved that "there is no conclusive evidence to prove that Iran played a role in fueling the Bahraini protests".
Nevertheless, the King continued in the marginalization of the fact-finding commission, he stressed at the ceremony of submitting the report, that the practices issued by the Iranian media, is (a clear evidence) of the plot and conspiracy, which justified calling the Peninsula Shield Forces to protect his country; "This is a clear indication of the blatant interference in the internal affairs of Bahrain, such intervention has led to a great suffering for the people and the nation".
The entry of the Peninsula Shield troops was the peak compromise of the national sovereignty. He escaped from solving the internal impasse by involving foreign powers. After the entry of those troops, it was no longer an internal affair, it turned into a regional issue, causing an interference by Arab and Western parties, and the Bahraini crisis became widely open to the world, and then after the loss of the state sovereignty caused by the King, he returned to say in his last meeting with Bahrain Defense Force in June 13, 2012 that " We are also confident that the people of Bahrain are able to address all issues thanks to their patriotism and to the spirit of the reforms within a positive, purely patriotic and constructive dialogue that seeks Bahraini solutions, and not foreign ones.” And added: “We do hope that everybody will think of Bahrain’s interests and will keep the domestic issues away from international conflicts in which we play no part.”
The King's Seclusion
Since the start of the events of 14th February until now, the King has elected to be absent from the scene that Bahrainis have experienced every day, and to stay in seclusion and being alone in his palaces as he used to be, he has not come out to the people one day, no less to sit with the opposition forces to listen to them without a mediator that misrepresents what is being said and what is not. The King chooses to worsen his isolation more, and satisfied himself with his little retinue that surround him and convey what they want using their own ways.
Authority and affairs of the state have been delegated to "Al-Khawaled – a branch of Al-Khlaifa family" to fully manage them as they wish. The King missed all the events and the people consider the speeches he deliveres on and off as a laughing stock. Some people even consider the King's appearance on television delivering a speech as a bad omen, as there will be a fall of a martyr on the same day.
The King is no longer the first symbol in the country, neither for the pro regime nor for opposition. In the pro regime street, the first man is Khalifa bin Salman – the Prime Minister - and later comes the ‘Field Marshal’. That was evident in the first weeks of the State of National Security when the pictures of Khalifa bin Salman emerged without the King, which they later rectified.
The King jeopardized the future of the next heir to the throne, the Crown Prince, by his poor management, weak performance in governance, and of giving away his authorities. He has retreated to sycophants and advisers whom only he listens to. He listens to what assures him that he is doing the optimal solution, and that the security solution is the only choice to stay on his throne, and that he should remain assured because there are valiant soldiers protecting his rule not his kingdom.
The experience of February 14th showed gross negligence of the King of his responsibility towards the nation and the people, and towards the crisis. The King said in the first part of this report that he would not allow going to past practices, but in the first real test; he made the country retreat backwards several decades.
In the Constitution: "The King is Head of State, and its nominal representative, and his person is inviolate. He is the loyal protector of the religion and the homeland, and the symbol of national unity." But the King neither protected nor was a symbol of unity, rather he caused schism and participated in deepening the current crisis. He is still in his absence that he has chosen for himself, so as not to be bothered while in his seclusion. Limited options are now available:
The first option: the King awakens from his slumber, corrects what remains (if any), and immediately starts making real reforms by giving the authorities to the people so that the people can hold the authorities accountable when the laws are violated or misused. By that, the King’s legal and neutral status is preserved.
The second option: the King chooses to voluntarily step down and delegates his responsibilities to someone from his family who is competent to shoulder those responsibilities.
The third option: the people choose another king.
The fourth option: a new political system that preserves the rights and the sanctity of this people, which is a compromise between toppling of the regime and reforming it.
The fifth option: the situation gets hopeless, and this will open up options and unknown repercussions that no one can predict.