The FIA and Bahrain - An Analysis & Commentary

“The FIA shall refrain from manifesting racial, political or religious discrimination in the course of its activities and from taking any action in this respect.” - Article 1 of the FIA Statutes

Most of us all know by now the situation in Bahrain and how the world had focused on it due to the Formula One (F1) race taking place there. Unfortunately, and partly because of the decision to continue the race in Bahrain, none of us can really separate the two from each other and will not be able to for some time. Despite the attempts made by the FIA and F1 to show that they were an apolitical sporting organization that had nothing to do with Bahrain's problems, they ended up becoming exactly such by allowing themselves to be used as a platform of political communication. Pretending that F1 had nothing to do with Bahrain and vice versa is a fantasy and will not make anything go away. It also doesn't justify the choice made by the sport's leadership to outwardly pretend that their operational decisions made for an international motor sport had little affect on anything outside of it.

I want to make it clear that this post will NOT be one that tries to argue which political group has the moral high ground or how Bahrain should resolve their situation. I am also not here to make a normative claim on how you should view that particular political situation. I have a whole other venue to make that type of argument at my graduate school where I study philosophy and political science. What I will focus on can be identified through the following questions:

(1) Were the decisions made by the FIA and F1 consistent with their organizational laws and governing principles?

(2) Were their actions with Bahrain consistent with actions taken in the past regarding political situations?

(3) Did the FIA have enough information to properly evaluate the political situation in Bahrain?

(4) Did the FIA and F1 maintain an apolitical status?

(5) Is there any other reason as to why the FIA would break it's own rules and governing principles for Bahrain?

The official stance of the FIA regarding politics and sport

  Formula One is an international motor sport that conducts events in over 20 different countries and is sanctioned by the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA). The FIA is a non profit organization that acts as an international federation of motor sport. According to the FIA official website, they are the “governing body for world motor sport and the federation of the world’s leading motoring organisations.” In short, the FIA and F1 are organizations composed of teams, drivers, staff, etc. that hail from various countries. They each have their own philosophy, religion, and general way of life. Due to this diverse composition, both organizations must remain respectful when it comes to sociopolitical issues that are outside the purview of motor sport.

This neutrality is reflected in their own laws and is summed up nicely in Article 1 of the FIA Statutes where it is stated that “The FIA shall refrain from manifesting racial, political or religious discrimination in the course of its activities and from taking any action in this respect.” So not only are they responsible to maintain a stance of neutrality when it comes to political issues, they must also maintain a moral responsibility pertaining to the rights of human beings in that they can not discriminate based on race, political ideology, or religion. In fact, they must also refrain from manifesting this type of discrimination in the course of it's own activities and from taking any action that may bring this on.

The FIA also claims to be “structured in line with the 2001 Statement of Good Governance Principles  produced by the Governance in Sport Working Group.” In section 3.9 of this document, the following is stated:

In addition to the accountability to its members that is described above, governing bodies shall identify other interest groups which are likely to be affected by its decisions and actions. The interests of these groups shall be taken into account so far as possible.

In addition sports governing bodies shall recognise and pursue the aims of cultural and social cohesion through their sports. In particular, any discrimination based on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age, or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

The FIA and F1 have a written responsibility to ensure that discrimination based on the criteria above is prohibited. It is also held to the responsibility of extending this consideration to other groups that may be affected by it's actions.

With this criteria examined and established, I will now take a look into what actions the FIA have taken in the past regarding such issues.
 

What the FIA has done in the past

In regards to politics, both the FIA and F1 have done an adequate job of maintaining as much of a politically neutral stance as possible and have largely avoided the influence of political institutions. They have been able to host races that cultivate a safe, culturally aware, non discriminatory, and politically free environment. The FIA and F1 have had an excellent track record in ensuring these responsibilities are upheld to the highest standard. Whenever an issue would arise that was politically or socially charged, they would investigate and address the situation immediately. A good example of this can be found in their response to the podium incident that took place at the 2006 Turkish Grand Prix.

Case Study: 2006 F1 Turkish Grand Prix

During the podium ceremony, Ferrari driver Felipe Massa was presented his race winning trophy by Mehmet Ali Talat. Talat was a Turkish Cypriot leader and was announced via television caption as the “President of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.” This was extremely controversial as this nonexistent nation was only recognized by Turkey. At the time, Greece and Turkey were in bitter dispute over the political legitimacy in Cyprus. This dispute has taken place since Turkey invaded in 1974. Needless to say, there was a lot of political outrage over the actions taken by Talat.

The FIA immediately launched an investigation and responded appropriately. Upon concluding their investigation, they fined the Turkish organizers $5 million USD, which at the time was the largest fine in motor racing history. They also threatened to remove Turkey from the 2007 WRC and F1 calendars.

The FIA released the following statement regarding the incident:

"Political neutrality is fundamental to the FIA's role as the governing body of international motorsport....No compromise or violation of this neutrality is acceptable."

The FIA set a clear message that it would not be used as a political tool and that it would severely penalize those who attempt to use them as such. They clearly stated that political neutrality was necessary in order to fulfill their role as an international organization. There can be no exceptions made.

The Situation with Bahrain

Bahrain is a country with unique geopolitical characteristics. It is a very small country where proximity can become a major factor. International sporting events like F1 have a greater socioeconomic impact in relation to other countries on the calendar. It is unique in a sociopolitical sense in that the Sunni Muslim minority rule over the Shiite majority. Bahrain has a constitutional monarchy in which the al-Khalifa royal family has maintained power for over a century. Since the 70s, there have been repeated attempts by the Shiite majority to establish democratic institutions in order to achieve fair representation.

In early 2011, peaceful protests began to emerge for the purpose of reforming the government towards a more democratic political structure. The Government of Bahrain (GoB) responded brutally and led a massive crackdown upon the protesting population. The governing regime's security forces used extreme tactics for the purposes of suppressing protestors, bloggers, and activists. The aim of these actions were to reestablish governmental authority. Unfortunately, this crackdown involved massive human rights violations. Elements of the GoB would deny these problems until they were found out by multiple sources to be lying. This resulted in increased international pressure on Bahrain.

The King of Bahrain, Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, responded by issuing Royal Order No. 28 on July 1, 2011. This order established the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI). The BICI was assigned to investigate the allegations of human rights abuse by the GoB and it's security forces. The order also required the BICI to produce a report that would recommend legal and administrative changes designed to address the GoB's response to the February/March protests and to prevent such a response from reoccurring. The BICI published their report in November of 2011 where they found that human rights abuse did take place. They recommended a series of reforms to help correct the issue. However, Mandate 8 of Royal Order No. 28 stated that “The Commission’s work does not involve political issues or negotiations.” Therefore, the BICI could not make any recommendations on reforms pertaining to political issues. This is problematic because this is one of the major reasons why the protests began in the first place. The belief of the opposition is that the GoB are seeking to relieve external pressure through the BICI and return to the way things were politically.

Since then, protests have continued to take place and for the most part have been peaceful (although there have been pockets of violence.) Reforms have been promised and dialogue has taken place. However, none of the reforms have been properly implemented. There is still dispute over the degree to which these reforms are being honored and how they are being implemented. Dialogue between the government and opposition movements are at a stalemate. In fact, the opposition party has withdrawn it's 18 members of parliament.

Long story short, Bahrain is experiencing a political stalemate and both sides are trying to get an upper hand. There is a strict ban on media in Bahrain and both sides are seeking international support. In regards to an international motor sport such as F1, they were both eager to convey their political views just as Turkey was in 2006.

Why the Bahrain situation differs from other countries in relation to F1

What makes the situation in Bahrain so unique in comparison to other authoritative countries on the F1 calendar? In other words, why should it be considered to be any different? This is an important question to answer because many fans, journalists, and even the F1 leadership have fallen back on a logically erroneous mode of reasoning known as the association fallacy. This error takes place when one assumes that because two things (Bahrain and China) share a particular property (human rights abuse, authoritative central government), then they are considered to be the same thing. In this case the argument was made that they are considered to be the same thing when it comes to hosting a F1 race. This is problematic and requires further examination.

The differences between Bahrain and China in relation to F1 are twofold:

(1) Bahrain is a relatively small country in which the F1 race has more of a socioeconomic impact on than anywhere else. The race is hosted and organized by the ruling regime that has heavy investment and interest in the event. A significant part of the population is currently protesting the regime and is eager for media coverage to compete against that of the government owned agencies. The government is trying to reassert it's authority in the area and wishes to use the spectacle of F1 as a tool to convey a message of unity and stability.

(2) China’s population is more than 1,000 times that of Bahrain. The FIA and F1 do not have a meaningful socioeconomic impact on the country as they do in Bahrain. China has not been suffering from political uprisings to the scale that Bahrain has. Thus, F1 does not risk being used as a negative tool of political significance in the region and does not break any of the statutes or governing principles set forth by the FIA.

I can not emphasize the above points enough. While China and Bahrain share similarities in terms of governance, the situation they present to F1 and vice versa is significantly different. Making a half hearted comparison and drawing a lazy conclusion based off of said comparison is an argument that holds no ground.

What did the FIA do prior to the race?

It seemed very odd to witness the sporting leadership push so hard for a race in a country that is still recovering from the events of last year and is locked in a political stalemate. Weeks prior to the race there were clear signs suggesting that the F1 race would be used as a political tool from both external and internal sources. The FIA were well aware of the possibility of political exploitation of their premier sport. After all, why else would the influential figures of the FIA and F1 constantly feel the need to reinforce their point that sport and politics should not mix and ought to be kept separate?

There was a significant effort made by the FIA to gather information. Jean Todt, President of the FIA, led a fact finding mission in November of 2011 in order to assess the viability of holding a race there. According to a FIA press release, Mr. Todt met with a “large number of decision-makers and opinion formers, including elected Shia members of parliament, the president of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, ambassadors from the European Union countries, the Crown Prince, the Interior Minister and many members of the business community.” The press release also stated that they received regular security briefings from senior officials and “independent experts”. Based on this information, it seemed like they were doing their best to adhere to the principles as laid out by the FIA statutes.

Which is why the announcement to go ahead with the race came as a complete shock. They seemed to keep harping on the security issue but would completely dodge the political issue. They did this despite the fact that their statutes and principles require them to take political issues into careful consideration. I would like to see what political experts, academics, human rights organizations, and other related sources were consulted prior to the race. If they only spoke to the above mentioned entities who already have heavy political ties in Bahrain then it screams out the logical fallacy of confirmation bias.

Yet for some reason the powers that be played the ignorance card. They seemed to only focus on the security issue without even examining the political situation and how F1 might be stepping into that arena. On April 13, Bernie Ecclestone expressed his own views in an interview with CNN where he stated that “I don't think sport should be involved in politics” and “I understand the problems in Bahrain have nothing to do with Formula One.” Well said Bernie, but your words certainly did not align with your actions. If sport shouldn't be involved with politics then the race should not have happened in Bahrain this year. The problems in Bahrain had nothing to do with F1, but having the race take place during a time of significant political strife in a country that has no freedom of press made sure that F1 had something to do with the situation in Bahrain.

This is where the problem starts to really surface. The FIA seemed to operate under the premise that the situation in Bahrain would not be a problem as long as they distanced themselves away from the political struggle and ensured the safety of their personnel. They did not seem to take into serious consideration that they would be used for political gain through the use of media.

The Media Issue

Bahrain does not allow any critical or outside media. An exception is made for the media, reporters, and sports journalists surrounding F1. All other outlets are controlled by the government. The Freedom House group reports the following on their tentative civil and political freedom assessment report for Bahrain:

The government owns all broadcast media outlets, and the private owners of the three main newspapers have close ties to the government. The government and its supporters have used the press to smear human rights and opposition activists. Self-censorship is encouraged by the vaguely worded 2002 Press Law, which allows the state to imprison journalists for criticizing the king or Islam, or for threatening “national security.”

There is no law guaranteeing freedom of information, and the Ministry of Culture and Information (MOCI) has the authority to censor and prevent the distribution of local and foreign publications, close newspapers through court proceedings, ban books and films, block websites, and prosecute individuals. The government frequently invokes restrictive press laws to deter the media from criticizing government policies.

The Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry Report backs this up in their report as well:

It is clear that the media in Bahrain is biased towards the GoB. Six of the seven daily newspapers are pro-government and the broadcasting service is State-controlled. The continuing failure to provide opposition groups with an adequate voice in the national media risks further polarising the political and ethnic divide in Bahrain. The lack of access to mainstream media creates frustration within opposition groups and results in these groups resorting to other media such as social media. This can have a destabilising effect because social media outlets are both untraceable and unaccountable, characteristics which present problems when such media is used to promulgate hate speech and incitement to violence.

I display these two reports because they provided more than enough evidence for the FIA to infer that the GoB has a lot of experience when it comes to the control and manipulation of information. Time and time again the ruling authority have used media and the press to their own end. The BICI report also indicated that there are instances where the opposition will do the same thing, although no where near the degree to which the GoB does.

Whether or not this is justified is a whole other thing. What it does point out is that they know how to work the media to their advantage and that they see nothing wrong with this. In fact, despite recommendations to relax these controls, the GoB have continued to maintain their hold on the media. This should have been another indicator that the government and opposition would likely use F1 to their own political end. This wouldn't be as big of a problem if there wasn't such a dire political situation taking place that affects a significant amount of the population there. It also wouldn't be as big of a problem if F1 didn't have such a big impact on Bahrain. Both the governing regime and the opposition protestors saw F1 as a chance to bolster their position. There was enough evidence and time available for the FIA to logically conclude that the exploitation of their sport would more than likely take place.

The likelihood turned into reality in the days leading up to the race weekend where the Bahrain News Agency released this press statement. The statement by the BNS claimed that the F1 race “portrays the capability and the success of the Kingdom of Bahrain in organizing and hosting such a unique global sports event thanks to the Kingdom's political and security stability.” The Bahrain government had already begun to release news statements bolstering their political position which undermined their opponents. This, combined with the “UniF1ed” banners placed throughout the circuit that used the F1 logo to show “One Nation in Celebration”, were two additional pieces of evidence that displayed Bahrain's use of F1 as a political tool. If that wasn't enough, the opposition promised to step up their protests and were working hard to grab the attention of the outside media. Several sport journalists were now being asked by their employers to cover the broader sociopolitical situation in Bahrain as the interests of media outlets began to escalate.

At this point, given the current political circumstances, the FIA should have extended a fine as they did with Turkey in 2006. At the very least they should have issued a warning to Bahrain that, per the statutes and governing principles of the FIA, they must maintain political neutrality and that no compromise or violation would be acceptable.

Given the information at hand, the FIA had enough justification to cancel the race and use the backup venue. In this case, the FIA would have been seen as staying consistent with it's statute and principles. Furthermore, they would have sent a clear message that the FIA must protect the integrity of it's governing body from outside political influence and that they will not tolerate the manipulation of their sanctioned racing series for political gain. All they would have to do is cite the aforementioned criteria and examples given.

What ended up happening

The race weekend took place and F1 was exploited as a political tool like never before. Those who followed the events over the past week know what took place. The Crown Prince of Bahrain, a senior government official, held a politically charged press conference at the circuit where he used some pretty crafty words in order to dispel the opposition and promote the views of the GoB. Bahrain International Circuit chief, Zayard Alzayani, asserted that the race was a triumph for Bahrain. The opposition stepped up protests (some violent), worked hard to gain outside media coverage, and declared the F1 race as a victory for their side. These are just a few examples out of many. All of them shared commonality in that they contained political statements that piggy backed off the F1 event.

There was also a negative reaction towards international mass media by the influential figures of F1 and vice versa. Some of this was warranted as there were overly exaggerated reports taking place but this doesn't necessarily free the other side from the blame. We all should know by now that the mass media makes serious errors in reporting and that they sometimes willingly do this in order to make a story seem bigger than what it really is. However, given the status of Bahrain's media restrictions some of the errors can be understood. At least in the case of mass media there are other sources out there that can contradict and correct.

A few F1 journalists were given free reign and were encouraged by their employers to dig up information outside the sport. However, they seemed to only concentrate on the safety situation and how that related to the race. There were attempts by outside news organizations to dig up more information on what was going on with the political situation but they were subject to being detained, had their materials confiscated, and deported.

The GoB played the political game well and used the F1 event to discredit international mass media and strengthen their position of power. Which may or may not help them justify their restrictions on media. On multiple occasions throughout the course of the race weekend, they used the medium of F1 to convey the message that they have acknowledged problems, are on the way to major reform, and are leaving themselves open to the world.

The problem with this statement is if they were really leaving themselves open to the world then they wouldn't have any problem allowing outside media, human rights organizations, and a number of other investigative agencies into the country. However, if they used the international spectacle of F1, an entity that they have deep financial ties with, then they could use the venue to help relieve external pressure. Which they took every opportunity they could to do this.

Oddly enough, they also took the time to point out problems in other parts of the world. Which is a highly fallacious yet advantageous evasion tactic known as the Red Herring. In other words, they shifted the focus of the argument on something completely unrelated to Bahrain. So not only were Bahrain making politically charged statements about their domestic issues, they were also making statements at an international level.

Given the events that transpired over the weekend, the FIA had overwhelming evidence to find the organizers guilty of violating the political neutrality of their sport. There were multiple offenses that took place time and time again. However, the organizers of the race were left unpunished and not held accountable. When Turkey committed only one offense they were slammed with a record setting fine. The FIA seem to be holding some sort of bias.

The FIA, F1, and Bahrain - A Love Story

Something doesn't add up here. Let us review the following:

• Turkish government officials used F1 as a political platform in order to push their own agenda on a politically tense situation which had nothing to do with F1. The FIA responded by punishing the national organizers with a record fine.
• Bahraini government officials used F1 as a political platform in order to push their own agenda on a politically tense situation which had nothing to do with F1. The national organizers were not punished. In fact, they were praised for their efforts.

Why did the FIA violate political neutrality and make a compromise for Bahrain? It just didn't make sense to see the FIA throw away the relative consistency and credibility of the past for this venue alone. Thanks to an article written by Richard Williams of The Guardian, I may have found an answer. In his article, Mr. Williams writes the following:

The Bahrain affair also exposes the conflicts of interest that flow through Formula One. The crown prince of Bahrain sanctioned the building of the Sakhir circuit and the payment of the annual $40m to Ecclestone. His cousin Abdulla is a member of the FIA's powerful World Motor Sports Council, as is Ecclestone. The investment arm of Bahrain's sovereign wealth fund, Mumtalakat Holdings, owns 40% of the McLaren team, which is perhaps one reason why Jenson Button and Lewis Hamilton have been economical with their opinions this weekend. The crown prince also shares the ownership of a team in the GP2 championship, F1's supporting attraction, with the son of Jean Todt, the president of the FIA, who was in a position to order the cancellation of this weekend's race but declined to do so.

This tells me a couple of things. First, there is a conflict of interest taking place here. Jean Todt should not have been the final authority to make the decision on whether or not F1 would hold a race at Bahrain. There are personal ties that could compromise his ability to remain unbiased in his decision making process. Even if he could remain unbiased in his decision, it would still be very bad PR. The public would be very suspicious of this conflict of interest and would likely have little trust in Mr. Todt's decision. They should have let someone else make the final decision on whether or not to cancel the race. Second, it seems that the FIA can be bought for the right price. Political neutrality and rules of law need not apply.  None of those things seem to matter as long as you can organize a race that ensures safety, caters to the VIPs, and can pay well.
 

Closing thoughts

International sport is one of few activities in the world where politics doesn't have to play a big part. It serves as an escape that helps bring people together under a different kind of banner. International sport can help foster an understanding of many cultures in ways that other activities can not because it remains politically neutral. The moment that organizers let an international sport such as F1 get involved with politics, intentionally or unintentionally, it throws away that escape and becomes part of the political problem. I did not even watch the racing parts of the Bahrain GP because I was too involved with the political issues and the actions of the FIA. I have had to argue with people that I normally never get into it with. I can't even begin to imagine how it would feel like if this type of thing were taking place in my own country. What if F1 somehow found a crafty way to endorse the republican or democratic party at the upcoming race in Austin, Texas? What if this endorsement helped boost voting numbers for one side? A few weeks ago I would have dismissed that as far fetched, but now I find myself questioning it.

Given the criteria above, the FIA should have opted to cancel the race and used their backup venue. This route would have been a more viable solution that could have easily avoided the political situation in the country and not put the credibility of the FIA and F1 at risk. More importantly, the organizations would never have to put themselves in a position to be used in such a way that may yield an extremely immoral result. However, since the race already happened they should impose a fine on the Bahrain organizers for making political statements at a F1 venue or remove them from the calendar. This is the only way to remain consistent with their own rules and with their past actions. I doubt anything will happen.

Let us go back to the questions I asked at the beginning of this article. The decisions made by the FIA regarding F1 were NOT consistent with their organizational laws, governing principles, and past actions. They had more than enough information available to be able to conclude that the Bahrain Grand Prix would be used as a political tool and they had more than enough justification to issue some sort of punishment to the race organizers. Despite claiming that politics and sport should not mix, the FIA allowed such to happen and there were several cases where the influential figures of F1 made some politically skewed comments. Not only did they break neutrality they also got played and displayed support for a political power. Finally, the FIA seem to have ties with Bahrain that indicate a conflict of interest that only serves to corrupt their own rules and governing principles.

It only leaves me to question why in the world the FIA felt like the means justified the end and that the risk was worth violating the integrity of their members and organization itself. When it comes to rule of law the means hardly ever justify the ends. Anytime someone in power goes above the law and justifies their actions by pointing out that the means justified the end then that person has effectively placed his or herself above the law. Once that happens it is extremely hard to go back. The FIA allowed F1 to be manipulated as a political tool despite knowing better. This is problematic because it only sets a new precedence for the sport and severely damages the credibility of the worlds premiere motor sport organization. No longer can the FIA go back to past examples and show that they are consistent in their actions. The example of Bahrain will always be pointed out to them and will be used against them, despite their best intentions.

The FIA violated the integrity of it's own organization and not one person is being held accountable for this. Let us be real, what one intends to happen and what actually happens are two different things. Just because one doesn't intend for something to happen doesn't mean they are relieved of taking responsibility for their actions. In other words, the FIA and F1 can not play the ignorance card and hope that it justifies their actions. They will have to deal with the moral decision made to race in Bahrain and with the decision to allow F1 to be used as a political tool. I just hope that it is sooner rather than later.

Brandon Warren is a part time freelance writer with a focus on all things motor sport and sim racing related. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy and is currently attending graduate school with the aim of gaining a Masters in Political Science. He can be contacted at brandon@igpmanager.com