Isa Qassim: To call for the dialogue and then work on its failure is a scandal to the authority

Isa Qassim: To call for the dialogue and then work on its failure is a scandal to the authority.

In his Friday sermon, Shaikh Isa Qassim described the call of government for a dialogue and then working on its failure with a scandal.

He also stressed before the thousands of citizens in the Grand Mosque in Duraz that Bahrain’s people took to the streets and presented their sacrifices in order not to let the government impose its orders and control them, emphasizing that the opinions of those who refuse the popular vote do not match with the popular opinion.

The second part of Friday Prayers Sermon for Ayatollah Shaikh Isa Ahmed Qassim Imam of the Grand Mosque in Duraz (Imam Al-Sadiq Garand Mosque) 22^nd February 2013. 

The opposition in Bahrain with its elite and masses demonstrated that they represent the political majority for more than once and also stressed in their last march on the 15^th February 2013 that the basis of the opposition is the citizen without tenants or foreigners.

Which party is more important in the opposition – the elite or the masses?

There is no doubt that each has an indispensible role. The elite’s role is represented in pushing and activating the planning, directing, rationalization, control, and negotiation, while the movement will be lifeless without the masses in the street who represent the fuel for any movement in any arena. The help of the elite will lead the masses to more advance.

The failure of the elite’s role might cause the movement a range of harmful errors and negative confusions. The failure of the elite’s role can also multiple losses and might lead to numerous and excessive partial views. All this will increase the opportunities for affecting and targeting the opposition.

On the other hand, the failure of masses’ role or their atonement of their movement might terminate and strike the movement. Such failure will make the opposition’s case theoretical rather than practical and effective. 

Based on this, if there is a dialogue of which the authority is party … what will be the aim of the authority? Does the authority aim to gain the consent of the elite or masses? What will the consent of elite achieve if it does not come along with the masses’ consent?  

This will lead the directing, rationalization, and control to be stopped. Consequently, the anger will increase, unexpected reactions as well as uncontrollable chaos will spread in a way that no situation or ship can be stabilized with. 

If the outcome of the dialogue is to earn the consent and the approval of elite, the authority should take in consideration the consent of the masses. Such outcome will not do a favor to the elite or masses or even the authority. Thus, it is important to conduct a popular vote on any negotiation or dialogue since it is necessary to gain people’s consent or approval as this will represent a solution or a part of the solution to the crisis.

What will stop the marches, demonstrations and sit-ins, and other mass protests and cries? Is it going to stop because the so-called committee agreed on a result which people consider to be harmful? The goal must be ending the conflict, directing all the efforts to have the joint and fruitful construction, and establishing new relationships based on trust which necessarily requires the approval of the majority of the people – at least – on the results of any dialogue or negotiation.

That the righteous and stable relations, the safe and advanced situation, and the homeland of love and prosperity cannot be truly achieved with unfair results, and with incomplete and insufficient solutions that focus on side issues, marginal affairs, and formally side as the main issues are obviously ignored, like the agreed-upon constitution, the independent full powers parliament –not under the veto nor any negative effects of other institution-, the elected government, and the fact that people is effectively the source of authority.

The result will come deprived of logic! And it will the most strange thing, if the voice that rejecting the elected government and a popular referendum – If this view – identical to the function in popular representation.

Does the opinion -that rejects referendum, and rejects the elected government- match to the people opinion? If it does, the result will come so weird, it means that people refuse to take part in the policy-making that his future is based on its decisions, and refuse to participate in a referendum in which he has the right, or to give his opinion in that.

This opinion – the opinion rejecting the referendum and the elected government – if it matches the people opinion, what people say about himself?
As if people here say about himself: I entrust my affair to the government, and I’m not eligible to give an opinion in my life and my destiny, and I’m a minor shortcomings for me to participate in making his own life policy.

Is there any people who says this? Can this view be of a conscious segment of a people? Is it possible that a people of the peoples in the world – no matter how much it degenerated in the level of consciousness, culture, and sense of dignity – takes this path, and takes this option? Saying: I give up myself, I am an animal which does not understand, or I am a child, I do not understand?!

How dare can I to say on behalf of the people, that my opinion of the peoples, when I say that the people does not have to take part in making itself policy, not to give an opinion in his life? – This is very high daring, which should not be issued of a sane, O brothers -.

What is reality of the two?
The opinion rejecting the elected government and the referendum on the dialogue compacts – especially with the fact that the interlocutors were not elected by the people, even the negotiators and axes of Al-Wefaq and other opposition societies were not elected by the people directly for this job – does not match the will of the people and contrary to his opinion? Or that is our peoples’ opinion which can’t be said by anyone have something of conscious, will and a sense of freedom and dignity? Which is correct?.

There is no doubt that our people is greater than that, isn’t it the people who gave all what have been given and sacrificed everything sacrificed, in terms of consciousness and sense of honor and dignity, and the intensity of his commitment to his freedom? Why this people gave what he gave? A series of honor, pride and dignity sacrifices, thousands of tormented prisoners, all this pains, all this wounds, to say to the government: I entrust my affairs to you?

Then It is strange and not surprising, that calling for the dialogue and pushing to join in, and a parallel work to this invitation on the earth is being pushed strongly to be given up, straining the surrounding atmosphere, and highly electrifying the security in the arena in order to block the road. All this comes from authoritarian views or belonging to the authority, and the authority is the one who called for dialogue and urged to it.

But to call for dialogue has its thoughtful wisdom and background for the authority, as well as the wisdom of opposition work of this call, no surprise and no wonder. Calling and urging are for the media and embarrassment and opposition work to give up benefits.

It is so obvious that the authority has no tendency for dialogue or reform, as clearly evidenced by the thistense atmosphere by stress and spirit of tension, the intention of security aggravation, and continuing to abuse people by continuing the series of announcing of terrorist and coup cells, which lead to configure a‘tempestuous’ popular army, by a group who did not exceed their secondary school certificate – seemingly-, and who miraculously and quickly turned to huge military mentality in the level of military leaders mentality of major states, and their budget reached millions that needed to configure the absolutist army.