Contested Spaces and Sectarian Narratives in Post-Uprising Bahrain

In February 2011 widespread protests erupted in Bahrain, the latest of the waves of unrest in the region that became known as the Arab Uprisings. The protests gained momentum before being crushed by Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) forces which entered Bahrain on 14 March. This precipitated a crackdown on opposition groups, and any activity that was deemed critical of the regime, as the Al Khalifa establishment sought to solidify its position. This period has been wellcovered by the literature, which mostly focuses on the regime’s survival strategies and alliances, amid wider geo-political concerns (see Matthiesen 2013, Neuman 2013, Wehrey 2013, Kinninmont 2013, Mabon 2013). In contrast, scant attention has been paid to how the state master-narrative is being constructed and received by counter-narratives from ‘below’, within the context of contested political space, at home and in transnational sites. In doing this, the paper also seeks to analyse the use of narrative as a key part of the state’s response to the uprisings, and its impact on opposition actors residing in both Bahrain and in exile, situated in a backdrop of escalating sectarianism in the region. This paper suggests that a state master narrative, bolstered by international partners’ support – material and discursive has established the interpretative frameworks by which the Bahraini uprising are to be conceptualised, and restricted the nature of political space both within Bahrain and transnationally, ultimately crushing the political potential of counter-narratives and their advocates. Ultimately, such an effort is designed to regulate and control space and the framing of Bahraini politics.


Introduction
In February 2011 widespread protests erupted in Bahrain, the latest of the waves of unrest in the region that became known as the Arab Uprisings 1 . The protests gained momentum 2 before being crushed by Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) forces which entered Bahrain on 14 March. This precipitated a crackdown on opposition groups, and any activity that was deemed critical of the regime, as the Al Khalifa establishment sought to solidify its position. This period has been wellcovered by the literature, which mostly focuses on the regime's survival strategies and alliances, amid wider geo-political concerns (see Matthiesen 2013, Neuman 2013, Wehrey 2013, Kinninmont 2013, Mabon 2013. In contrast, scant attention has been paid to how the state master-narrative is being constructed and received by counter-narratives from 'below', within the context of contested political space, at home and in transnational sites. In doing this, the paper also seeks to analyse the use of narrative as a key part of the state's response to the uprisings, and its impact on opposition actors residing in both Bahrain and in exile, situated in a backdrop of escalating sectarianism in the region. This paper suggests that a state master narrative, bolstered by international partners' support -material and discursive -has established the interpretative frameworks by which the Bahraini uprising are to be conceptualised, and restricted the nature of political space both within Bahrain and transnationally, ultimately crushing the political potential of counter-narratives and their advocates. Ultimately, such an effort is designed to regulate and control space and the framing of Bahraini politics. Unlike some of its wealthier Gulf neighbours, Bahrain's oil wealth has been on a smaller scale and in recent years, the country has begun adjusting to a post-oil economy. Bahrain is a case study of a rentier state that has had to be flexible and diversify in order to keep the ruling family in power. The rentier model allows states to develop and liberalise economically while keeping a tight rein on political rights and freedoms. Bahrain's changing economy, coupled with inequalities inherent in the system, meant that it did not match the rentier state's 'ideal' type (in the Weberian sense) which can disregard the social contract between state and citizens due to This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis Group in Global Discourse on 19 Jan 2017, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/23269995.2016 rent accrued externally. This is exacerbated by the fact that the Sunni minority has historically been privileged economically and has ruled politically. Since 1992 a number of the Gulf states have taken steps towards democratisation, putting in place new processes, parliamentary elections, women's' suffrage -, although this is inconsistent between and within states over time. The general consensus, certainly since the uprisings, has been that these are about regime survival rather than commitment to reform. Such a position also seeks to stress that the ensuing political space can be managed and controlled by the state. As such, the expansion of political space does not necessarily mean an expansion of political debate and dissenting voices. This paper utilises the concept of political space -sites (physical and virtual) where citizens, claiming their agency, are engaged in political action and discussion.
Political space falls within the broader concept of the public sphere, defined by Habermas as the manifestation of "society engaged in critical public debate" (Habermas, 1989, p305) in an unrestricted way, shaping public opinion. The public sphere is situated in-between state and society (and given the diasporic nature of opposition groups, has a transnational dimension as well). Political spaces are more grounded, although the sites are fluid and interactive. The sites reflect power relations, political struggles and the actors contained within. Their boundaries are not set, but contested in themselves, and the defining and shaping of the space is part of the political struggle. As a consequence of the divisions within -and betweendifferent facets of Bahraini society, appealing to a master narrative has to find commonality above difference. Such commonality is then framed within the context of latent fears about manipulation and penetration of the state by external actors and, as a consequence, the master narrative gains traction across sites of political space. This paper begins by providing a brief history of unrest and the geopolitical context within which Bahrain is located, unpacking the importance of the archipelago within the broader narrative of a sectarian conflict. The second section explores the state's response to opposition movements, predominantly focussing upon a two-pronged strategy of repression of political space coupled with attempts to shape Bahrain's international image through soft power strategies. The third section turns to the consequences and challenges of the use of this master narrative. Ultimately, such a strategy is designed to ensure the survival of the regime in the face of a number of pressures, most notably geopolitical concerns, demographic issues and economic challenges. This paper draws upon a series of interviews conducted in Bahrain and in the UK, in 2013 and 2014. Our interviewees included British officials, prominent Bahrainis who support the regime, and a range of Bahrainis who are opposed to the regime, many of whom do not identify themselves with any one opposition group. All names have been changed unless speaking in an official capacity.

A History of Unrest
Tension and violence between state and society are not new phenomena in Bahrain; rather, the outbreak of violence in 2011 can be seen as a continuation of decades of political unrest. Latent grievances manifest intermittently and a number of strategies aimed at dealing with unrest can be derived from Bahrain's history. Bahrain, at the intersection of the Persian and Arab, Shi'i and Sunni worlds, has historically been home to a mixed and multi-cultural population, reflecting 'a long history of immigration associated with trade, pearling, pilgrimage and military conquest' (Fuccaro, 2009, 9).
State building in the region has been traditionally based on kinship and tribal solidarities 3 (an-'asabiyyah) and religious principles (al-din). The Al Khalifa arrived from central Arabia between 1735 and 1783 and over the following decades established tribal towns where the pearling industry thrived, distanced from the Shi'i agricultural villages, bringing with them a strong tribal dimension to power and governance, as well as amplifying religious difference. Nelida Fuccaro maintains that tribal solidarities rather than sectarian sentiment were the foundation of 'ideal urban hierarchies' (p29) 4 , especially as the towns had both religiously and ethnically mixed populations, leading to distinct urban cultures like that of the Manami 5 , reminiscent of other cosmopolitan port cities of the time like Alexandria and Istanbul. It was in this period that the chasm between town and village, tribes and agriculturalists, urban and rural, was reinforced, a division that is still resonant today.
As Juan Cole has discussed, Shi'i had problems integrating into the new states formed after the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, where the prevalent ideology was Arab state nationalism (Cole, 2002). Al Khalifa rule legitimised the Sunni tribal Arab subjects as the authentic Bahrainis, as opposed to the Shi'i Persian nonindigenous other, portrayed as a threat to the social and political order.
Modernisation and urban development were of chief benefit to the Sunnis who occupied the cities, with the Shi'i villages lagging behind. Clashes between Persians and Arabs in Manama between 1900 and 1923 reveal the use of the terms 'outsiders' and 'foreigners' thereby setting up the binary which continues to plague the national narrative, and the creation/depiction of the Other. Such history goes some way to creating frame resonance for domestic audiences, particularly when combined with concerns about domestic security.
In Bahrain, Sunnis have always enjoyed a higher social and economic advantage over the majority Shi'i, reinforced by the dominance of Sunni Islam in the Arab world.
Sophia Pandya (2010, p40) suggests that this has resulted in a 'Sunni-normative environment' where 'Bahraini Shi'i, despite their (numerically) majority status, feel as though they are "the other", and are thus on the defensive -in a way that Sunnis are not -for their difference.' Historically, there has been an active public sphere in Bahrain, with vibrant grassroots political networks, whether religious, labour or intellectual in foundation.
These were often mobilised around issues of economic, political and social inequality, which were intensified by the divisive competition which accompanied British colonial rule. In time, religious forums became the site of an oppressed Shi'i identity, leading to the articulation of a politics of emancipation, in contrast to the state-sponsored religiosity of the Sunnis and the cadre of influential Sunni clerics with strong business and tribal links (Fuccaro 2009, pp40-1). It is the often the wider geopolitical dimension that has the capacity to shape the nature of protests across Bahrain. Shi'i grievances took on an increasingly class dimension in the 1930s which saw the development of labour mobilisation, through increasing networks and associations of Shi'i workers, which led to strikes, protests, labour disputes and finally in the 1950s, the dissolution of the municipal order 6 .
From the 1940s until independence in 1971 the Maharram religious celebrations became the major space to voice political dissent, which took on a nationalist and Arabist dimension, sometimes leading to sectarian clashes, particularly so during the infamous Ashura celebrations in 1953, resulting in a riot 'which became one of the most fiercely contested events in the history of modern Bahrain' (Holmes, 2016, pp105-114) with clear Arab/Persian and Sunni/Shi'i sectarian overtones. Yet, as Fuad Khuri notes, these simple binaries, which are translated as a Sunni/ Shi'i sectarian divide, 'are not clear-cut social categories' but are instead 'historical traditions and must be understood in… context' (Khuri, 1980). Much of the literature points out that there were other identities like class, labour solidarity, anti-colonial sentiments, nationalist ideas that trumped sectarian identities, particularly in the anticolonial struggle and the subsequent independence movement.
Fuccaro, like others, points to the 'transformative powers of oil' and its impact on the social order together with the advent of modernity, which 'enforced new political, social and spatial divisions ' (2009, p11). Fuccaro's study of the urban history of Bahrain reveals that in typical state-building fashion, Manama has been 'gradually transformed into (a) space(s) which embod(ies) a new idea of "homogenous" national culture and political community', with the 'recuperation of pre-oil urban traditions and settings and the establishment of national museums' being among '… the most tangible manifestations of state-sponsored nationalism', in Bahrain as well as some of its Gulf neighbours, alongside a 'teleological narrative of legitimacy promoted by ruling families (Ibid, p3)' to bolster their power base and support.
1994-1997 was a period of great unrest and renewed political activism, with clerics and the youth demanding social, economic and political rights for the disaffected Shi'i population, and the regime responding with largely cosmetic reforms alongside increasingly restrictive measures (Wehrey, 2013). This emphasis on the public appearance of liberalisation and concessions, alongside crackdowns in practice, is typical of authoritarian rule responding to outside pressure, leading to claims of broader geopolitical concerns about the nature of regional security and the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

The Geopolitical Importance Dimension
The location of Bahrain's archipelago is perhaps the key reason for the state's importance within the Middle East. Lying only 25 kilometres off the Eastern coast of Saudi Arabia, and 200 kilometres from the western coast of Iran, Bahrain has become embroiled in a proxy conflict between the two regional powers (Mabon, 2012). This regional competition has been complicated at an international level by the involvement of the US and UK. As a consequence of this, the geostrategic importance of Bahrain cannot be understated. In addition, the escalating sectarianism of the region is a great cause for concern across Bahrain. Indeed, Bahrain is perceived to be the epicentre of the Peninsula's 'sectarian disenfranchisement' (Wehrey et al, 2009), with a majority Shi'a population 8 who are perceived to possess ties with Iran.

Continued Sunni control of Bahrain is of paramount importance to the Arab Gulf
States. For Saudi Arabia, the stability of Bahrain is crucial, as demonstrated in 2011 when Saudi-led GCC forces crossed the King Fahd causeway and entered Bahrain.
The extent of their involvement in events is disputed, with some suggesting that these forces did little other than protect key strategic sites in the south and were banned from entering Manama (interview, Sunni Bahraini, Manama, 2013). Others suggest that Saudi troops were integral in ending the initial spate of protests.
Constant Saudi involvement in Bahrain -regardless of the veracity of any claimsdemonstrates the importance of the archipelago for Riyadh.
Given its location on the coast of the Eastern Province, linked directly by the 25 kilometre causeway, the Al Saud does not wish for instability in such close proximity.
Building upon this, there is a perception amongst many Arab Gulfis that Iran has aspirations over the sovereignty of Bahrain, with historical and contemporary claims to ownership over the island, perpetuated by a narrative that Iran has been behind the current unrest. This suspicion is coupled with a historical rivalry between Riyadh and Tehran (Mabon, 2013) that is driven by both ideological and geopolitical dimensions. As a consequence, Saudi Arabia is increasingly suspicious as to Iran's motives in Bahrain. Bahrain is also very important for Saudi Arabia due to the ethnoreligious composition of the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Home to the cities of Dammam, Khobar and Al Qatif, the Eastern Province is the location of the largest oil field in the world, as well as the location of the majority of Saudi Arabia's Shi'i population. The history of unrest in the Eastern Province (Matthiessen, 2010) has often been attributed to Iranian influence.
Bahrain also plays a crucial role in that it acts as a 'valve for social pressures' (Mabon, 2012) for Saudi Arabia. Given the strict Wahhabi doctrine in operation, the opportunity to visit places and participate in activities that would be deemed haram in Saudi Arabia, in such close proximity, allows for the release of societal tensions. This was facilitated by the opening of the causeway linking the two states in 1986. There were other avowed intentions behind its construction: to foster economic ties between the two countries, and to facilitate ease of access to Bahrain in case of the Al Khalifa experiencing trouble and needing Saudi help (Henderson, 2011). composed of Arabs who are long term residents (Bahrana) whose origins are from the eastern province of Iraq; long-term residents of Iranian origin (Ajam); and more recent arrivals from Iran following the 1979 revolution. Many of the latter, despite being second or third generation residents are without Bahraini passports or full citizenship, and are referred to as bidun. Recognising such tensions within these communities is imperative when considering the construction of the master narrative, which requires cultivating a strong enough collective base to secure the regime and, thus, to refer to the lowest level of commonality, in this case, religion.
Quantifiable evidence of influence from Iran has been hard to establish, yet the perception -and the myth making by the regime (and its allies) -that Shi'i loyalties lie with Iran, and threaten the ruling order, are dominant in the public sphere. Fear of Iranian influence has not been helped by Shi'i Ashura processions brandishing pictures of Khomeini and Khamenei and other such symbols of perceived loyalty to Iran. In the most recent unrest, despite an increased suspicion of Iranian involvement, either directly or through proxy actors such as Hizballah, 9 there is as yet little factual evidence to support the idea that Iran is manipulating events (Kinninmont, 2012). Furthermore, despite the occasional discovery of domestic plots whose actors appear to possess ties with Tehran, it is important to remember the caution that many (Arabic-speaking) Saudi and Bahraini Shi'i exercise towards their The role played by the Bahraini regime's international patrons, the US and UK, alongside its regional 'big brother' Saudi Arabia are absolutely crucial factors in keeping the regime in place, and propagating its narrative. In the very rare instances when these allies have dared to step out of line, the regime has retaliated in an uncompromising fashion 10 . Eva Bellin, in her article on the 'robustness of authoritarianism in the Middle East' (2004) focuses on the rigour of the 'coercive apparatus' as a defining factor. In this case it would seem that the support of powerful international allies, who in turn, supply and bolster the 'coercive apparatus' are paramount. Their role in upholding the state's sectarian narrative and tactics undermines any counter-narratives circulating transnationally and internationally.
Aidan Hehir (2015) in his study of why Bahrain is an R2P (Responsibility to Protect) 'blind spot' points to the role that the US and UK have played in supporting the regime in pursuit of their own 'narrowly conceived national interests' at the expense of normative concerns with regard to the treatment of the Bahraini population. Such a position also reflects the strength and success of the master narrative in speaking not only to Bahrainis but also to the international community.

Sectarianism as Narrative and Weapon
While prima facia explorations of the emergence of conflict in Bahrain suggest that schisms have occurred along sectarian lines, this belies the complexity of the situation. Rather, divisions exist at several levels: between members of the ruling family, the Al Khalifa; between Sunni and Shi'i; between Bahraini and non-Bahraini; and within protest movements, some of whom, residing outside of major cities, have demanded the end of the monarchy itself, while other more integrated opposition groups such as Al Wifaq (Beaugrand, 2016), have been open to engaging with the Crown Prince over reform (Hilterman and McEvers, 2011). Such schisms across the archipelago demonstrate the difficulty in creating a master narrative that is able to find unitary traction amongst the largest group of people, in this case, within the context of fears at Iranian orchestration of the Shi'a led protests.
Splits within the Al Khalifa are found between the more hard line members of the ruling family and those who advocate a more conciliatory approach, such as the Crown Prince, Salman (Henderson, 2011). On 8 th April, 2011, Salman spoke to the state-run TV station, where he stated that 'We all aspire to a better tomorrow, in which nothing but development, progress, respect for the rule of law, and coexistence represent the utmost goal we all seek to achieve' (Ibid). Amongst several of the opposition groups, even some advocating the removal of the Al Khalifa regime, the crown prince is considered the best chance of reform, although Andrew Hammond (2013) and others have singled out Saudi Arabia as being a key player in 'cultivating sectarian spaces', and using the sectarian narrative to great effect since the outbreak of the Arab uprisings in December 2010. Following these events, concern at rising Iranian influence has dominated policy discussions across Saudi Arabia and the Kingdom has sought to securitise the threat posed by Iran to Sunni Arab states. Such a move is also aimed at US (and increasingly Israeli audiences given shared fears of Iran), with the rapprochement with Iran a cause of consternation for a number of people in both states. In contrast to this view, it is possible that the Saudis do not actually think that the Iranian threat is substantive but what they are really trying to avoid is any political liberalisation and democratisation in Bahrain which would ultimately also threaten their own authoritarian power at home and have possible repercussions in the rest of the Gulf states.
Indeed, using sectarianism as a 'pre-emptive counter-revolutionary strategy' is nothing new or unique to Bahrain as Madawi Al-Rasheed (2011) has analysed in the case of Saudi Arabia. This tool relies on the ruling regime's claims that 'external agents (are) determined to undermine the country's stability and security' -as the Bahraini regime did with the Iranian conspiracy claim; thereby scaring the Sunni (and the rest of the) population with some kind of external expansionist threat; discrediting legitimate pro-democracy movements, which possessed scope for realisation, and their cross-sectarian potential; and fuelling sectarian tensions and divisions. Of course, divisions within the ruling family resulted in such problematic positions. This also allows government forces to use heavy handed methods to suppress the uprisings, as the narrative holds that continued unrest could lead to the unravelling of the nation due to the claim of an Iranian-backed Shi'i revolt across the region, with local Shi'i as agents and therefore traitors to the country. This propaganda was very actively employed throughout state media, through the tentacles of the state, in Sunni mosques and media stations with the result of fuelling sectarianism (while outwardly denouncing it and presenting the regime as the only one who could curtail it). By creating and bolstering the fear and the perception of 'the Iranian bogeyman' (Zunes, 2013, pp156-8) and conspiracy with the local Shi'i as agents, the regime was able to present itself as the antidote to the apparently inevitable sectarianism and the destructive potential, and thereby legitimising the use of any means necessary to quash dissent. This sectarian macro-narrative takes the focus away from the real, local issues that plague the island and fuelled the uprising, notably the disparities in the distribution of wealth and power, and demands for democratisation and human rights. By building upon and mobilising latent fears about Iranian manipulation of Bahrain's domestic affairs, such political problems are marginalised, removed from the scope of legitimate discourse and subsumed within broader questions about domestic security.
As Al-Rasheed articulates, in the case of Saudi Arabia, 'the regime fosters the impression that, without its intervention, the country will enter a Hobbesian state of nature where tribes, sects and regions unleash their fanaticism and violence on each other and undermine the security of all Saudis' (2011, p522) This ultimate aim of the Saudi regime is to make impossible the creation of a genuinely inclusive opposition which is cross-sectarian which would be a real threat to its continuing reign.
Regardless, the sectarian narrative that the Bahraini state spread was a divisive tactic that drove a wedge through society, and the democratic protests, and prevented the formation of an effective, inclusive opposition, made up of Sunni and Shi-i. Such a simplistic tool has proved devastatingly destructive with regard to political protest in Bahrain, leading to the possible conclusion that the opposition lack agency. Yet its success demonstrates the ability to play upon latent existential fears about the survival of the state, alongside broader questions of regional security within the Gulf (Mabon, 2013).

The Velvet Glove and Iron Fist
The state's response to the uprising has been along two main lines. The first is retaliatory: punishment of protesters, ranging from imprisonment, torture, legal action, dismissal from posts, and disappearances 12 . As a counter to state violence, the second is an active investment in improving Bahrain's image externally, through a 'soft power' strategy.
The main physical site for the uprising, Pearl Roundabout, once a national symbol of Bahrain's regional status 13 , became the site and symbol of the uprisings. Much has been documented about how Pearl Roundabout was transformed from an inclusive space of peaceful protest to a site of violent crackdown by government forces, leading to it being dramatically bulldozed on 18 March 2011(Khalaf, 2013. This irrevocable act revealed state brutality in its unadulterated form, and the accidental death of an Asian migrant worker in the process reinforced the impression of the cavalier attitude of the state to the disenfranchised. By destroying sites of physical space for dissent -and securitizing others -the state sought to deface and remove the dissenters, marginalise their demands, and violently undermine their narrative of peaceful protest and legitimate political demands. The ensuing havoc and confusion fitted the state's narrative of national security to justify their repressive actions and policies. The controlling of the narrative and public image was completed by the withdrawal from circulation of 500 fils coin which depicted the Pearl monument. In addition, the state coercive apparatus are in themselves agents of division and discontent. It is clear that the Bahraini riot police is substantially comprised of Sunni Muslims from the Asian subcontinent and beyond, many of whom do not speak Arabic. The composition of the police force demonstrates moves to shore 'up Sunni Leadership in a Shi'i majority country… a legacy of the colonial approach to administering Bahrain' (Strobi, 2014). Indeed, the use of Sunnis brought in from Pakistan, Syria, Jordan and Yemen as 'mercenaries' and granting them citizenship is a deliberate move to engineer social demographics and increase the numbers of Sunnis in Bahrain, with the belief that the latter will not hesitate to be brutal in their policing of Shi'i to which they have no ethnic or religious attachment. This move reinforces the almost complete absence of Shi'i from the police force and their severe under-representation in government ministries in general although there are no clear statistics available (Bahry, 2000). Laurence Louër (2013) highlights the exclusion of Shi'i from the security apparatus as being an efficient 'coup-proofing strategy' by the regime, and that the recruitment strategies were essential to 'ensuring that no segment of the security apparatus sided with the protestors' (Louër, 2013, p251). Such moves result in people holding key positions being complicit within the master narrative, invested in its future and the stability of Bahrain.
Alongside this internal repression, the state is engaged in shoring up its image to international audiences.
Gulf states are competing to increase the legitimacy of their respective regimes, in part to ensure the stability of their rule, to increase their influence (both regionally and internationally) and to attract Foreign Direct Investment. Soft Power, the ability to influence the behaviour of others to get the outcomes one wants through seduction and attraction, is the approach employed to woo international audiences, in contrast to the 'hard' power which is unhesitatingly employed internally (Nye, 2004, p6). This seduction and attraction is achieved through cultural resources, the transmission of values and public diplomacy. Whilst notions of Soft Power competition within the Middle East are not new (See: Barnett, 1998 andMabon, 2013) 14 the literature tends to focus upon religious or ideologically driven Soft Power competition, which can be seen with the spiralling flux of moves within Islam, namely between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and within the Arab nationalist movements in the 1950s and 1960s. While certain states have a comparative advantage in prestige stakes, either through culture, history or shared values, states that lack inherent prestige may seek to secure this by locating themselves within an international narrative of prestige. Done successfully, this can demonstrate that a state is a responsible member of the international community, behaving in accordance with international norms, with the aim also of placating both external and internal critics. which has spread to awareness-raising studies and campaigns concerning domestic workers (Amnesty International, 2014) and other subalterns upon whom the economy and societal infrastructure depends in most Gulf states. Yet despite these potential pitfalls, Bahrain has continued to utilise a soft power strategy, concluding that the prospective benefits outweigh the negatives.

Sites of Conflict and Contestation -Policing Political Spaces
More broadly, the state's response to the uprisings has been the violent suppression of dissenting voices through the restriction and policing of political space. Such a policy is not new, although it has escalated since the uprising. In May 2002, the government blocked the website Bahrain Online which had served as a forum for discursive politics. Since then, the government has sought legal action against anyone engaging in political activities that are deemed subversive, whether online or otherwise (The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information). Forms of political expression, from 'insulting' the king, or criticising the regime are considered to 'disseminating false news' (Article 168 of the Penal Code).
In the first instance this has resulted in a policing of the state borders. Since 2011, the regime's policy has been to try and keep out any visitors who might be critical of the regime. Bahrain Watch has documented over two hundred cases of individuals who were denied entry into Bahrain (Bahrain Watch a). While visas have always been required to enter Bahrain, the number of individuals turned away from Bahrain International Airport is growing. Those denied entry have typically been academics 16 , journalists, researchers and those involved in human rights work, and hence considered a threat as potential critics of the master-narrative being put forward by the regime. Of course, ascertaining the success of such moves is difficult to achieve, yet those who have experienced such restrictions are often keen to tell their tales.
This notion of securitised borders has included monitoring cyber activity, with a particular focus upon social media of Twitter and Facebook internationally (Booth and Sheffer, 2011). Alongside the deportation or denial of entry to (potentially) critical voices, the Bahraini government has gone on the offensive by hiring UK and US based PR firms to spread its own narratives and bolster its image (Bahrain Watch, b). Ultimately, the construction of a master narrative is an attempt to shape the image of a regime, as an act of misdirection, away from legitimate concerns. Clearly the regime takes seriously the importance of who 'owns' the narrative and the need to spread and perpetuate the official state narrative while suppressing alternative perspectives. For a politically immature government, any criticism is considered an affront, and any compromise a weakness. So much so that a mild reference to Bahrain suffering from 'sectarian tensions' by the US in 2013, led to a strong and angry response (Bayoumi, 2013) and suggesting that the master narrative has failed to find traction amongst international audiences, for whom the same security concerns may not outweigh normative questions.
Beyond the physical sites of conflict the virtual domain was also transformed into an increasingly polarised and combative space. There resulted a media war with the state media seeking to dominate the narrative and suppress all others. However, as reported by Al Jazeera, all these measures to 'suppress the narrative of crackdown on a mostly unarmed pro-democracy uprising has been difficult for the government with social media-savvy activists armed with mobile phones or other recording devices' (Cassel, 2012). Although not without internal difference and nuances, there ensued a binary framework, with two broad narratives: the opposition narrative which framed things in terms of peaceful demonstration and demands for reform and democracy, devoid of sectarian content; and the government narrative which spread the myth of an Iranian-backed threat to the relatively liberal state intent on a Shi'i theocracy and the overthrowing of the regime. Without the deployment of a master narrative, the peaceful protestor narrative could have found greater traction amongst Bahrainis, less inclined to continue supporting the Al Khalifa amidst continued human rights abuses. Of course, by constructing the narrative around particular threats and building upon latent fears about Iranian involvement within the domestic affairs of Bahrain, the peaceful protest narrative is less appealing.
There has also been a silencing of internal critics in the virtual realm. The government appears to be both sophisticated and ruthless in its monitoring of online activity. With an increasing diaspora network and, having seen the mobilization power of the online realm, maintaining security and control of narratives online is of paramount importance. There have been recent claims that the government is using fake twitter accounts to track online critics, with at least 11 twitter users jailed for insulting the king (Jadaliyya Reports, 2013). This extreme response to online activities has meant that most individuals have curtailed or even ended their online political engagement, fearing both for themselves and those with whom they are associated (verbal and written communications with several interviewees in Bahrain and in the UK) 17 . Thus the intimidation by the government has been relatively successful in suppressing online activism, apart from major umbrella groups like 14Feb Bahrain (14feb Bahrain) and other human rights-based groups that take recourse in the human rights narrative as a source of legitimacy and ongoing protest.
We see here the use of universal norms and narratives democratic and liberal rights like freedom of expression, freedom to protest and demonstrate, alongside the appeal to supranational and international organisations like Amnesty International (Amnesty International: Bahrain) to validate these perspectives. The latter in turn, work on the supranational level to offer a strong platform for the wider counterhegemonic narrative, exerting pressure on and seeking to hold the regime to account on the international stage, once more suggesting that the master narrative holds less influence at the international level. The exploration of the role of technology in protest and democracy movements is a burgeoning area of exploration. Emma C. Murphy (2006) has written on how the introduction of modern information and communication technologies in the Gulf Arab states has fallen short of its democratising potential. Despite being an expansion of the public sphere, these sites are subject to scrutiny and control by the state. Manuel Castells (2001) in his study of the power of networks argued that it would have a democratising effect -providing forums and (subversive) spaces for information exchange, which could also be spaces which are free from government control, thereby eroding the power of the state and allowing for increased transnational communication. This prediction has been shown to be idealistic, and critiqued by the subsequent generation of scholars who have focussed on the inherent and structural inequalities within the virtual, which mitigate its levelling potential. One should not entirely dismiss the potential of the internet in terms of the expansion of political spaces, rather, one should be aware that these are also subject to the disciplining power of the state and its tentacles. This phenomenon is by no means confined to the Gulf states, leading to self-censorship on the part of political actors, dilution or complete withdrawal -a successful result for the state regime. Drawing from Foucauldian ideas about how 'counter-memory splinters the monolithic and ruptures the homogenous narratives imposed by the powerful ', Khalaf (2013, p276) deems that the 'virtual world has become a site of counter-memory and discourse'. The Bahraini virtual space was not however one of redemptive or genuinely counterhegemonic potential as the initial terms of the interaction gradually coalesced, and were interpreted and incorporated into the binary framework, with very limited spaces of radical dissidence and challenge to it. Thus the myth of the virtual world being a space for liberating sites of identity-making and belonging does not seem to be the case in the Bahraini example, instead it was a reflection and extension of the hegemonic and counter-hegemonic narratives, and carried the same characteristics of spreading fear, insecurity and discord. There was very limited space for 'just being Bahraini' (interview with Bahraini student in Manchester, December 2013). Jalal and Jawad Fairooz were among those. The former was in London for a week's course and on the third day received the news that his nationality had been revoked and he would not be returning home. He and his brother and family have been forced to stay in the UK, living in limbo in London not yet having received asylum (ibid). Rather than being cowered by the regime's aggressive tactics, the activists are using the position of exile to speak with unwavering courage and forthrightness 18 about the reality of the Bahrain regime. They too are sceptical of any national dialogue, doubting the sincerity and intentions of the regime. They also point the finger at the regime for the polarization in Bahrain, saying that its divide and rule tactics have created the sectarianism which plagues it, and threatens the unity of Bahraini society that is essential for a political solution to come to fruition.

Transnational Political Spaces: Narratives From Exile
The physical conflict in Bahrain was also played out outside the boundaries of the state. In the UK and other countries, Bahrainis (and others) gathered to protest against the government repression and in solidarity with the protestors in Bahrain.
The strong surveillance of the state extended to these activities, with UK protestors being targeted by the regime. In the case of pro-democracy student protestors in the UK, some had their government scholarships suspended and their university tuitions payments stopped (Taylor, 2011); several said their families in Bahrain had been subjected to visits and phone calls from the state, and threats to their safety. The students claimed that among the protesters there were spies (either Bahraini or Saudi agents) who disrupted the events and reported them, having been alerted to the developments by Facebook (interview, two participants of the protests, Manchester, 2013). One of our interviewees referred to these agents as a 'cyber army' who infiltrated social media groups in order to spy, undermine and destroy, saying Facebook in that period for Bahraini students abroad had become 'the battleground', the destructive effect of which reverberated into their 'real' life relationships and interactions in an effort to ensure the success of the master narrative.

Concluding Thoughts
The Bahraini case is an important contemporary example of how states can successfully define and ultimately construct the terms of a conflict, by imposing a hegemonic narrative, backed by state force. By employing a sectarian narrative, the Bahraini regime has sought to disempower a non-sectarian democratic mobilisation.
This was supported by employing both hard and soft power strategies, to mixed success. By representing itself as the only antidote to the apparently inevitable implosion of the delicate social order, the state successfully fixed the interpretative framework and forced it onto events, for both domestic and international consumption. Such a conclusion reveals a great deal about the political climate within Bahrain, along with latent fears about security and sovereignty, struggling to prevent external manipulation, but also, about regional power relations and Bahrain's position within the Gulf. By embracing such a narrative, it delegitimised the protests, (mis)representing them as a sectarian uprising. The additional tragedy, is that this violent quashing of dissent has antagonised the moderate voices and risks alienating -or radicalising -them (Zunes, Op Cit), while dismantling genuine democratic demands and altering the terms of the struggle. The sectarianism framework absolves the state of the need for political reform domestically, although for international audiences, such noises are still required, and diffuses the democratic demands of citizens. In addition, the protestors themselves got trapped in the master-narrative which pervaded the national, transnational and international arenas.
When confronted by a persistent and powerful master-narrative with far-reaching tentacles, the opposition were weakened and unable to withstand and challenge the interpretation of the conflict. Dissent was increasingly marginalised and found recourse only in exile, online and in the realms of universal narratives and norms offered by transnational NGOs.
In promoting a sectarian master narrative, the Al Khalifa regime has also sought to locate the Kingdom's problems within the broader schism affecting the Muslim world.
Stressing the sectarian nature of the conflict feeds into wider narratives of Iranian subversion across the region, positioning Bahrain at the epicentre of the Sunni/Shi'i confrontation. By invoking this sectarian master narrative, the state is failing to engage with the complexity of the domestic problem, making it increasingly difficult for opposition voices to find space to express their grievances, and delaying the need to address them constructively, while risking a further tarnishing of its image internationally.
In the case of Bahrain, the expansion of political spaces -to the transnational and the virtual in particular -has not resulted in greater freedoms or democratisation.
Instead these spaces have been violently shut down, controlled or co-opted, meaning that counter-narratives and views challenging the regime are relegated to increasingly narrow spaces that are subjected to the same pressures and threats as physical sites. The sectarian narrative fuelled fears of an unravelling nation and instability in the state, thereby justifying the increased use of force and discipline towards citizens, and border controls -discursive and physical. This cycle renews authoritarian regimes and gives them greater legitimacy while silencing and cracking down on dissent within. This trend is by no means confined to Bahrain, we see it in even in a democracy like Turkey which has been sliding towards authoritarianism at least since the Gezi Park protests of May-June 2013. Whether Gezi Park, Lulu Roundabout or Tahrir Square, political sites are being subjected to violent crackdowns, and political spaces forced to retreat and be reconfigured elsewhere, needing constant protection and vigilance. What is perhaps distinct about Bahrain's renewed authoritarianism is the level of support and complicity it received from its international allies, which both physically and metaphorically arm the regime.