Gerrymandering in Bahrain: Twenty-One Persons, One Vote

[Image from bahrainwatch.org] [Image from bahrainwatch.org]

Gerrymandering in Bahrain: Twenty-One Persons, One Vote

By : Jadaliyya Reports

[The following article was issued by Bahrain Watch on 11 February 2013.]

With the the start of yet another “National Dialogue” arranged by the Bahraini government yesterday, the Bahrain Watch team thought it would be appropriate to highlight the issue of gerrymandering which will certainly be brought up during the talks.

The question of gerrymandered voting districts has been one of the major sticking points between the government and opposition since 2002, when King Hamad unilaterally imposed a new constitution in Bahrain. The opposition insists that the electoral districts have been unfairly engineered by the government such that the opposition would never be able to win a majority in parliament. (Even if the opposition were to win elections, half of the seats in parliament are appointed directly by the King).

On the other hand, the Government and its supporters maintain that gerrymandering is part and parcel of electoral politics in even the most democratic countries. US House of Representatives member Dan Burton — who took a paid trip to Bahrain last year on behalf of a pro-monarchy group — brushed away criticism of gerrymandering in Bahrain by stating that in the US “and around the world, gerrymandering is a way of life. I don’t know how in the heck you are ever going to stop it.” He went on to give an example of gerrymandering involving himself.

The suggestion that the problem of gerrymandering in Bahrain is similar to that in the United States can only be borne either out of ignorance, or dishonesty. Let’s see why.

In the US, gerrymandering is very much a part of the political tradition, but it is restricted to changing the shape of a district. The 1964 Reynolds v. Sims Supreme Court ruling ruled that the principle of “one person, one vote” had to be applied when defining electoral districts. So although there may be great differences in the demographic makeup of any district, the size of the population in each district must be roughly equal. It is deemed unconstitutional if the difference between any two Congressional districts in a state exceeds one percent.

In Bahrain however, the principle of “one person, one vote” was thrown out of the window when the government drew up the electoral districts in 2002. The deviation between the population of the electoral districts here is so big that that it is better expressed in multiples rather than percentages. If we consider the most recent parliamentary elections held in 2010, the largest electoral district (Northern 1) had over 21 times the number of eligible voters than the smallest district (Southern 6).

See the chart below, based on data from the website of Alwasat newspaper for the 2010 elections:

 \"\"

 

This large difference in voting power alone (“twenty-one persons, one vote”) should be enough to show that the elections are not “fair”. But we can go a step further and see if there is any pattern to which districts have more voting power and which have less. As one would expect when the deviation between districts is so high, the distribution is not random.

The map below shows the different districts coloured according to the number of eligible voters it had in 2010, with red indicating more voters and green indicating less. Or in other words, more red indicates lower voting power and more green indicates higher voting power for voters in that district.

\"\"

 

At first glance, one notices that the districts that have been packed with the most voters happen to cover the mostly Shia villages of the north of the island that are opposition strongholds. The districts with the least voters happen to be mostly Sunni areas in the south that are pro-government strongholds.

The only green coloured district in the Northern Governorate is Northern 4. This district was carved out to connect the Sunni towns of Budaiya and Jasra, and has a total electorate of less than 4,000 voters. Compare that to the directly adjacent Shia districts of Northern 9 and Northern 3, which have over 12,000 and 14,000 voters respectively.

Clearly, this is by design. The pattern becomes more apparent when you put the above map next to one that shows which districts are opposition strongholds. In the map below on the right, the districts coloured red were won by the opposition Al Wefaq party, while those in green were won by pro-government (or “anti-opposition”) candidates.

 \"\"

 

The five largest districts by electorate were all won by Al Wefaq, while the five smallest districts were all won by pro-government candidates. The average electorate size for districts won by Al Wefaq was over 10,000, while for the rest it was less than 6,300. In total, the number of eligible voters in districts won by Al Wefaq was 181, 238, while the total in those districts won by others was 137,430 — and yet this translated into only 18 parliamentary seats for Al Wefaq, while pro-government groups got 22.

Despite numerous petitions, protests, and boycotts since 2002, for ten years the government refused to even discuss the issue. It was only after the uprising of February 2011 that the government made mention of the subject. After the so-called “National Dialogue” of July 2011, the government “confirmed its intention to establish a committee to re-consider the distribution of electoral constituencies”. However it has yet to publish any details on whether that committee has been formed, let alone the principles that would be used to “reconsider” the constituencies and who would be responsible for carrying it out. Bear in mind that five of the nine members of the committee responsible for implementing the 2011 dialogue belong to the royal family.

Given the outcome of the previous “dialogue” it is easy to be skeptical of the government’s seriousness about resolving this issue in the newly announced dialogue. Maybe the biggest reason for being skeptical is that the man tasked with leading this dialogue, Justice Minister Khaled bin Ali Al Khalifa, has in the past brushed aside questions relating to the blatant gerrymandering problem, by saying that “any member of parliament represents the whole country, he does not represent an area, a sect or a race.”

 

 

 

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Harvard AAUP on Termination of CMES Leadership

      Harvard AAUP on Termination of CMES Leadership

      The Executive Committee of AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter condemns the abrupt termination of the leadership of Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES): Professor Cemal Kafadar as Director and Associate Professor Rosie Bsheer as Associate Director. Though both Kafadar and Bsheer will retain their regular faculty positions, this summary dismissal of two leading Middle East scholars from their administrative positions is a political infringement on academic freedom and the autonomy of professors to shape intellectual agendas in their areas of research, teaching, and programming expertise.

    • Long Form Podcast Episode 4: Why the U.S. Media & Democrats Won’t Save Anyone (3 April)

      Long Form Podcast Episode 4: Why the U.S. Media & Democrats Won’t Save Anyone (3 April)

      In this episode of Long Form Podcast, Laila Al-Arian, Assal Rad, and Sana Saeed address the role of corporate media and the Democratic party in enabling Israel’s Genocide and paving the way for many of Trump’s policies. Speakers also address the Democrats’ double standard on ethnic cleansing in Palestine.

    • Teaching Palestine Today: Liberal Arts Context

      Teaching Palestine Today: Liberal Arts Context

      Join our first session of “Teaching Palestine Today” series. This session addresses the “Liberal Arts Context,” with Lara Deeb, Heather Ferguson, Amanda Lagji, and Leila Mansouri, moderated by Bassam Haddad. Four faculty members at the Claremont Colleges, a liberal arts consortium, discuss their approaches to including material on Palestine and Palestinian perspectives into classes in anthropology, history, postcolonial and decolonial literature, and creative writing. Topics addressed include classroom approaches, syllabi scaffolding, and strategies for building support beyond the classroom.

Past is Present: Settler Colonialism Matters!

On 5-6 March 2011, the Palestine Society at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London will hold its seventh annual conference, "Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine." This year`s conference aims to understand Zionism as a settler colonial project which has, for more than a century, subjected Palestine and Palestinians to a structural and violent form of destruction, dispossession, land appropriation and erasure in the pursuit of a new Jewish Israeli society. By organizing this conference, we hope to reclaim and revive the settler colonial paradigm and to outline its potential to inform and guide political strategy and mobilization.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often described as unique and exceptional with little resemblance to other historical or ongoing colonial conflicts. Yet, for Zionism, like other settler colonial projects such as the British colonization of Ireland or European settlement of North America, South Africa or Australia, the imperative is to control the land and its resources -- and to displace the original inhabitants. Indeed, as conference keynote speaker Patrick Wolfe, one of the foremost scholars on settler colonialism and professor at La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia, argues, "the logic of this project, a sustained institutional tendency to eliminate the Indigenous population, informs a range of historical practices that might otherwise appear distinct--invasion is a structure not an event."[i]

Therefore, the classification of the Zionist movement as a settler colonial project, and the Israeli state as its manifestation, is not merely intended as a statement on the historical origins of Israel, nor as a rhetorical or polemical device. Rather, the aim is to highlight Zionism`s structural continuities and the ideology which informs Israeli policies and practices in Palestine and toward Palestinians everywhere. Thus, the Nakba -- whether viewed as a spontaneous, violent episode in war, or the implementation of a preconceived master plan -- should be understood as both the precondition for the creation of Israel and the logical outcome of Zionist settlement in Palestine.

Moreover, it is this same logic that sustains the continuation of the Nakba today. As remarked by Benny Morris, “had he [David Ben Gurion] carried out full expulsion--rather than partial--he would have stabilised the State of Israel for generations.”[ii] Yet, plagued by an “instability”--defined by the very existence of the Palestinian nation--Israel continues its daily state practices in its quest to fulfill Zionism’s logic to maximize the amount of land under its control with the minimum number of Palestinians on it. These practices take a painful array of manifestations: aerial and maritime bombardment, massacre and invasion, house demolitions, land theft, identity card confiscation, racist laws and loyalty tests, the wall, the siege on Gaza, cultural appropriation, and the dependence on willing (or unwilling) native collaboration and security arrangements, all with the continued support and backing of imperial power. 

Despite these enduring practices however, the settler colonial paradigm has largely fallen into disuse. As a paradigm, it once served as a primary ideological and political framework for all Palestinian political factions and trends, and informed the intellectual work of committed academics and revolutionary scholars, both Palestinians and Jews.

The conference thus asks where and why the settler colonial paradigm was lost, both in scholarship on Palestine and in politics; how do current analyses and theoretical trends that have arisen in its place address present and historical realities? While acknowledging the creativity of these new interpretations, we must nonetheless ask: when exactly did Palestinian natives find themselves in a "post-colonial" condition? When did the ongoing struggle over land become a "post-conflict" situation? When did Israel become a "post-Zionist" society? And when did the fortification of Palestinian ghettos and reservations become "state-building"?

In outlining settler colonialism as a central paradigm from which to understand Palestine, this conference re-invigorates it as a tool by which to analyze the present situation. In doing so, it contests solutions which accommodate Zionism, and more significantly, builds settler colonialism as a political analysis that can embolden and inform a strategy of active, mutual, and principled Palestinian alignment with the Arab struggle for self-determination, and indigenous struggles in the US, Latin America, Oceania, and elsewhere.

Such an alignment would expand the tools available to Palestinians and their solidarity movement, and reconnect the struggle to its own history of anti-colonial internationalism. At its core, this internationalism asserts that the Palestinian struggle against Zionist settler colonialism can only be won when it is embedded within, and empowered by, the broader Arab movement for emancipation and the indigenous, anti-racist and anti-colonial movement--from Arizona to Auckland.

SOAS Palestine Society invites everyone to join us at what promises to be a significant intervention in Palestine activism and scholarship.

For over 30 years, SOAS Palestine Society has heightened awareness and understanding of the Palestinian people, their rights, culture, and struggle for self-determination, amongst students, faculty, staff, and the broader public. SOAS Palestine society aims to continuously push the frontiers of discourse in an effort to make provocative arguments and to stimulate debate and organizing for justice in Palestine through relevant conferences, and events ranging from the intellectual and political impact of Edward Said`s life and work (2004), international law and the Palestine question (2005), the economy of Palestine and its occupation (2006), the one state (2007), 60 Years of Nakba, 60 Years of Resistance (2009), and most recently, the Left in Palestine (2010).

For more information on the SOAS Palestine Society 7th annual conference, Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine: www.soaspalsoc.org

SOAS Palestine Society Organizing Collective is a group of committed students that has undertaken to organize annual academic conferences on Palestine since 2003.

 


[i] Patrick Wolfe, Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event, Cassell, London, p. 163

[ii] Interview with Benny Morris, Survival of the Fittest, Haaretz, 9. January 2004, http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=5412