Framing the pro-democracy protests in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia as 'sectarian' subtly delegitimises the democratic aspirations of millions of people, argues Khadija Magardie Beyond the standard "calls of reform", 12 months later, it's still not clear just what the protesters in Bahrain and the east of Saudi Arabia are on about. Unlike in the cases of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, where the excesses of a hated leader and parasitic political class were the rallying cry to revolution -- insight into the grievances of the protesters in these two countries is hard to come by: if one reads the papers and watches the news. It's arguably no coincidence. Given the political upheavals that shook the Middle East in 2011 and simmer in other countries still, it is either remarkable, or testimony to the supposed fringe nature of their protests, that certain countries of the Gulf -- the Democrats Abroad (but absolutists at home) -- were left unscathed. It may be neither. If there's anyone who could be credited for burying the lead on this story, as the media lingo goes, it's the army of publicists hired by these regimes: to have journalists reading from the same script. By stoking the flames of sectarianism, and dredging up age-old animosities -- the rulers of these countries have managed to paint the aspirations of these protesters -- their own people -- as not citizens demanding actual citizenship, but agitators and agents of a foreign power. This has indirectly influenced the way in which the story has been covered. Though we may not know much about the demands of the protesters, we certainly know about their supposed motives: the overthrow of their supposedly popular rulers and the installation of a client state in thrall to Tehran. In any other context -- and apartheid South Africa comes to mind here -- protesting a situation of one racial, ethnic or religious minority ruling over a majority with an iron fist would not invite such scrutiny regarding motive. It would be seemingly obvious what it is: human dignity. But here, thanks to publicists' diligence, the word Shia has become something of a household one for readers and viewers. Carrying with it, no doubt, all the attendant horrors (whips and chains, women in black penguin outfits, martyrdom) and stereotypes (Iranian agents). The headlines speak for themselves. Bahrain braces for Shia protests. Shia protesters on the march in Bahrain. Shias rally behind popular movement. Sectarianism the subtext behind Bahrain protests. Sunni-Shia split manifests itself in mistrust. Some would argue the sect the protesters belong to is directly relevant to the story. That may be, but what actually lies behind them is of equal significance. Demands for the release of political prisoners, and opening up economic opportunities to people from impoverished areas were the catalysts that got people onto the streets last year -- and that keep them there today. But the swish television graphics, backgrounders and timelines of oppression that accompanied coverage of the Bin Ali, Mubarak, Gaddafi (and now, Al-Assad) regimes is in many respects lacking from the coverage of these two protest movements. At least the Bahraini protesters have more of a media profile -- and the necessary hunger strikers/ political prisoners to turn into a cause célèbre. Even when they're shot, the demonstrators in Qatif are finding it hard to get some airplay: a situation not helped by the Saudi strictures on journalists operating in the country. There is another problematic consequence of this labelling -- one that goes far beyond just highlighting, for the reader, a centuries-old religious schism within the house of Islam. It serves to give the impression that the protests are not inclusive and following on that -- are of questionable legitimacy. That thousands of Sunni Muslims are also part of the protest movement in Bahrain, and that Saudi Arabia has vocal Sunni groups who range from anti-monarchists to pro-monarchist reformers are facts that have long vanished into the ether. An even cursory glance at the social media sites and the comment threads below videos posted of the protests on Youtube shows just how polarising these protests have been. The Internet is tailor-made for bigotry at the best of times, but the number of times "filthy Shia" comes up in comments over protest videos from Saudi Arabia reinforces the point. The othering of the protesters, and appealing to the lowest common denominator of ethnic and religious chauvinism drives a wedge between the protesters and those who would ordinarily support their cause in the Muslim world -- if only this weren't such a Shia thing. The Iran threat is clearly a popular theme, particularly as it plays to the US gallery. Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, like any other state, have the right to defend themselves from meddling beyond their borders. Again, here, the language employed is telling. When Iran allegedly sends cash, weapons (and the feared agents and operatives) to Iraq, Syria or Bahrain, the usual sinister motive is applied -- that Iran is meddling and destabilising these countries. That may be, but how this differs from the activities of other countries in the region doing the same is unclear. When cash, weapons and operatives were despatched to Libya and now possibly Syria, it was deemed fraternal assistance. In the cause of democracy in Bahrain itself last year when Saudi armored carriers crossing the causeway to save the ruling family from its own people, the narrative was largely that of one Gulf cousin coming to the aid of another: and not as destabilisation or meddling. This points to what some have said is a double standard adopted with regards to democratisation and reform in the region. And the doublespeak comes from those who would promote the flowering of democracy abroad, but eschew similar rights for their own populations. The reinforcing of the point that the protesters are Shia carries a subtext that can be construed as dismissive in many parts of the world where this label is a pejorative one. In another context, were the oppressed majority black, or women, the fact of their race or gender would undoubtedly remain important to highlight in a headline.
