|
|
Commentary:
the law of political parties |
|
|
THE UNIFICATION of Yemen in 1990 brought a
period of unprecedented political freedom and diversity. These changes - and the sense of
excitement that accompanied them - were not unlike the political spring that occurred in
parts of eastern Europe shortly after the fall of communism. In the Arab world, however,
the openness of debate and the range of opinion - from Stalinist to Islamist - during the
early 1990s was unique. Suddenly the rights which most states grant to their citizens on
paper, but less often in reality, could be exercised by anyone who chose to do so, with
little fear of the consequences. Within a few months more than 40 political parties had
sprung up, together with dozens of new newspapers and magazines. The parliamentary
elections originally scheduled for 1992 were to be the first in the Arabian peninsula
under a multi-party system with universal suffrage. The
transformation was all the more unusual because, far from being achieved through popular
struggle, it was introduced from above by two regimes which had shown only a limited
interest in democracy in the past. Although democratisation continued the evolutionary
processes that had begun in both parts of the country before unification, the driving
force was not an outbreak of libertarianism. The degree of political freedom that actually
developed in Yemen far exceeded that which was originally intended. Despite the sweeping
(but partly routine) declarations of liberty in the constitution, the new laws relating to
political parties and the press showed that democracy and freedom of speech were intended
to operate within carefully-controlled limits. In comparison with other Arab states the
limits were certainly generous, but when the controls failed they were exceeded beyond all
expectation: Yemeni democracy became permissive by default.
This came about largely because laws intended to regulate
and, to some extent, restrict the activities of political parties and the press were not
implemented during the first few years of unity, creating a political free-for-all. One
factors in this was the historical weakness of central government in the north which meant
that laws covering a wide range of activities (not just political activities) tended to be
enforced only in part, if at all. A second factor was that the multi-party system had
created a means for unification to take place while allowing the ruling parties of the
former north and south to retain their separate identities. As serious differences between
the GPC and YSP emerged, the two parties were unable to agree on government action - so
restraints imposed by the law were often not applied.
In the eyes of the ruling parties, however, the main
objective of democratisation was to provide legitimacy, both internally and externally,
for the new regime. As originally envisaged, this process allowed for more continuity than
might be imagined and presented no immediate threat to the status quo: in contrast to most
of eastern Europe, it was not brought about by the collapse of the ruling party. Many of
the "new" Yemeni parties had existed informally or secretly prior to
unification/democratisation and simply emerged into the open. Nor was there much evidence
of new parties based around popular or grass-roots movements; on the whole they
represented elements of Yemen's existing political elite - either the establishment elite
or those sections of the elite that for one reason or another had become excluded from the
establishment. There was therefore little in the creation of so many new parties that
could be considered dangerous. The political equation was not changed by them; the
elements were all familiar, their strengths and weaknesses understood, even if some of the
party names were new. The principal change brought by unification/democratisation, as far
as these elements were concerned, was that their existence became officially recognised,
allowing them to promote their views more openly than hitherto.
LEGAL BASIS OF THE MULTI-PARTY SYSTEM
The multi-party system was a relatively recent adjunct to
the concept of politics in a unified Yemen. The Cairo and Tripoli
agreements of 1972, for instance, had merely envisaged a "democratic"
state without referring to pluralism. Although these documents did not specifically
mention a one-party system either, they tended to point in that direction. By the time of
unification in 1990, however, it was clear that Yemen would need pluralism because the two
regimes had failed to merge into a single party. Even so, the new
constitution made no direct reference to a multi-party system but Article 39
merely reiterated the 1972 formula in a slightly amended form:
In as much as it is not contrary to the constitution, the
citizens may organise themselves along political, professional, or union lines. They have
the right to form associations in scientific, cultural, social and national unions in a
way that serves the goals of the constitution. The state shall guarantee these rights, and
shall take the necessary measures to enable the citizens to exercise them. The state shall
guarantee all freedoms to the political, union, cultural, scientific, and social
organisations1.
While this plainly granted the right to organise
politically, it remained ambiguous on the question of political parties (i.e. bodies which
contest elections and seek to win power). "Political organisations" were listed
along with trade unions, professional bodies and the like, which made them sound more like
interest groups than parties. Far from clarifying the ambiguity, the 1991 Law Governing
Parties and Political Organisations complicated it further. The first part of the law,
which consisted of definitions of terms, said:
Party or Political Organisation = Any group of Yemenis,
organised according to common principles and objectives based on constitutional
legitimacy, who exercise political and democratic activities with the aim of achieving the
transfer of power or sharing thereof using peaceful means2.
Besides making no distinction between political
organisations and parties, this appeared to assume that any political organisation must be
seeking to achieve power and should therefore be considered a party. On the basis of that
definition, Article 39 of the constitution could be interpreted as granting a general,
unrestricted right to form parties. (Having determined that there was no difference
between a party and a political organisation, however, later sections of the law
repeatedly used both terms, as if to imply that they were not interchangeable.)3
The law then went on to state:
According to Article 39 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Yemen, general liberties including political pluralism and a party system
based on constitutional legitimacy are considered a right and a pillar of the political
and social system of the Republic of Yemen. This right may not be cancelled, limited or
restrained, and no measure may be taken to hinder the freedom of citizens to exercise it4.
That was as clear and categorical a statement as anyone
might wish for - except that other sections of the law attempted to regulate and restrain
the activities of parties in ways that theoretically were forbidden by the law's own
interpretation of the constitution. Amid these apparent contradictions regarding the right
to form political parties, three alternative views of the constitutional/legal position
emerged:5
1. That the constitution, as it stood, was specific enough
to allow parties to begin their activities without the need for any further steps to
legalise them.
2. That all parties should first meet the registration
requirements of the 1991 law.
3. That those parties which had existed legally before
unification (i.e. the GPC and YSP) could continue to operate, while new or previously
underground parties should register under the law.
Whatever the merits of the constitutional argument, to
establish a party strictly in accordance with the 1991 law, or even to continue the
activities of an existing party, a large number of criteria had to be met6. The
law's provisions were illuminating, since they addressed some of the fears about a
multi-party system that were current around the time of unification - in particular, that
it might jeopardise "sovereignty, security, stability, and national cohesion"7.
To protect sovereignty, party members must be Yemeni
nationals8 and those establishing parties must also be born of a Yemeni father9.
Gifts or services must not be accepted from non-Yemeni individuals or parties10
and parties must not be affiliated to a political system in a foreign country11.
This appeared to be aimed at preventing the system of "subsidies" or bribes to
tribal leaders by the Saudis and others being transferred to the new political parties.
However, as a concession towards the strong pan-Arab element in some Yemeni parties (the
Nasserists and Ba'athists, for example), the law did allow "bilateral ties - on equal
footing - with any non-Yemeni party or political organisation, in a manner that is not
contrary to Yemen's supreme national interests, the constitution and the laws in
force."12
In the general interests of security and stability, the
following obligations were imposed, setting the bounds of what was considered acceptable
activity:
a) Not to contradict Islam.
b) Not to endorse any of the former regimes of the imam or
the sultans. "Any actions contrary to the objectives of the Revolution, the Republic,
Unity and Democracy are forbidden."
c) Not to disrupt the general order and security, or to be
involved in plots or violence or to motivate others in them ...
f) Not to use mosques, or the educational and governmental
facilities to promote or criticise any party or political organisation.
g) The right to use public land for political activities
on condition of prior co-ordination with the relevant authorities13.
To protect national unity, each party "must stand on
a national basis and may not limit membership to any geographical region"14.
Neither must it be "based on regional, tribal, sectarian, class, professional, or any
other form of discrimination"15. As an additional safeguard, the
headquarters of the party must be in Sana'a16 and, at the time of submitting an
application to register, it must have at least 2,500 members from most of the provinces,
including Sana'a city17. The most obvious purpose of this was to prevent a
re-opening of the unification question through the development of specifically northern or
southern parties. It also addressed a phenomenon often witnessed in new democracies (in
Africa, for example) where parties have tended to be based around tribes.
An unspecified sum of money was to be set aside as a
government subsidy for political parties. This would be distributed according to a complex
formula under which 25% of the total would be shared equally by all parties represented in
parliament, with the remaining 75% divided in proportion to the share of votes obtained by
each party at a general election (excluding those which won less than 5% of the total
votes). In no case was the state subsidy to exceed the total income received by parties in
the form of membership subscriptions. Whatever the intention behind this, it did little to
help the smaller parties and meant that, in order to receive the subsidy, they would have
to provide detailed information about their financial affairs to the government18.
This included notifying the government of any single donation over 100,000 riyals (about
£1,500) or multiple donations from a single source exceeding 200,000 riyals19.
The requirements for registering a party were both complex
and stringent. Apart from meeting all the conditions set out above, the party had to
present an application signed by 75 founding members and notarised in a court of law. It
had to supply copies of its constitution and political programme, details of the
leadership structure, assets, banking arrangements, and branch membership lists showing at
least 2,500 other members distributed across the whole country20. Registrations
were to be supervised by the Committee for the Affairs of Parties and Political
Organisations, consisting of the Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs (as
chairman), the Interior Minister and the Justice Minister, plus four non-party members who
must be either retired judges or lawyers21. The law specified no grounds for
refusing the registration of a party, though it did say that parties could be dissolved or
have their activities suspended by court order for breaches of the law22.
The purpose of the registration system was capable of
various interpretations. At one level, it could be considered an over-bureaucratic attempt
to ensure that parties conducted their affairs properly and did not receive subsidies from
abroad or other undesirable sources. It also reflected the level of official wariness as
Yemen took a step into the unkown world of multi-party politics. Some of the smaller
parties detected a more sinister motive, arguing that the registration process (and the
subsequent supervision of their finances and internal organisation proposed by the law)
was unnecessarily intrusive. Controversy about this was still raging in 1996 when the
leader of one party commented: "If we give the rulers a list stating that these are
the founding members of the party (in essence, the owners), then what happens if someone
entices any number of them to split the party and lay claim to its organs and assets? We
have seen this happen a few times already."23
In practice, however, the restrictions imposed by the law
were not an immediate problem: during the first five years of unity, no party was required
to register, for a bizarre reason connected with the growing dispute between the GPC and
YSP. The law stipulated that the Committee for the Affairs of Parties and Political
Organisations must be chaired by the Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs24.
When the incumbent chairman, Rashid Muhammad Thabit, a Socialist, resigned the
chairmanship without resigning his ministerial post, there was no legal way to replace
him. As a result, the committee was unable to meet to consider parties' applications to
register25.
PARTIES AND THEIR POLICIES
Although a much-quoted statistic was that Yemen had 46
political parties, most of them were very obscure. Of these, 21 eventually contested the
first parliamentary election: |
|
1. General People's Congress |
12. People's Forces Union |
2. Yemeni Alliance for Reform
(al-Islah) |
13. Liberation Front |
3. Yemen Socialist Party |
14. National Democratic Front |
4. Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party |
15. National Front Popular
Organisation |
5. Truth Party (al-Haqq) |
16. Social Nationalist Party |
6. Nasserite Popr. Unionist
Organisation |
17. The (Legal) Union |
7. Democratic Nasserites |
18. Revolutionary Democrats |
8. Nasserite Correction
Organisation |
19. National Cohesion Conference |
9. League of the Sons of Yemen |
20. Islamic Democratic Movement |
10. Unionist Assembly |
21. Democratic Front26 |
11. September Democrats |
|
|
|
Of these, only three were numerically
important: the GPC, YSP and Islah. Ideologically, none was particularly cohesive. The GPC,
as an anti-party umbrella grouping before unification, had made a virtue of seeking to
draw as many different elements as possible into its embrace. Islah was an uncomfortable
alliance of radical Islamists and tribal conservatives, plus a smattering of business
interests. Members of the YSP covered a vast area of the political spectrum from social
democracy to unrepentant Stalinism. A Yemeni joke current at the time ran as follows: First man: Which party do you belong to?
Second man: I've told you twenty times - I'm in the GPC.
First man: Yes, yes, but which party?27
The same point could be made of almost any party. For most
Yemenis, deciding which to support was a matter of determining where one's interests lay
rather than choosing an ideology or set of policies which appealed. For example, when
asked for reasons why voters might support the GPC, Yahya Mutawakkil, the Assistant
General Secretary, said: "We are not fanatic in the Islamic area, not leftist,"
- and added with a touch of understatement: "Also, the president is party chairman.
He has influence."28 It should be noted, too, that political differences -
especially in northern Yemen - are rarely quite what they appear on the surface. Political
allegiances often conceal close family or tribal ties. Conversely, political differences
may be the outward symptoms of some family or tribal rivalry.
In practice, the policies of the individual parties were
less significant than the role each played in the three-cronered system that developed. It
is therefore better to consider their most important characteristics in terms of the way
they interacted with each other:
Relationship between the GPC and the YSP: The GPC
and YSP differed more in character than in ideology or policies. The GPC, as outlined in
Chapter 3, had been conceived in the 1980s not as a party but as an alternative to party
politics: an amalgam of all political tendencies with no ideology of its own. People
joined the GPC for what it was, not for what it believed in. The YSP, on the other hand,
was a party in the traditional mould, with an ideological basis, specific criteria for
membership and an effective local organisation - at least in the south and those parts of
the north where it was active. The changes required by unification had, however, brought
some convergence. The GPC began to construct a conventional party organisation but
retained its inclusive nature. The YSP, meanwhile, had abandoned its Marxism (and a large
part of its socialism as well), becoming much closer to a European-style social-democratic
party. Ideology, however, was not a barrier to serious consideration of a merger between
the GPC and YSP - a possibility which was explored in some detail after unification and
came close to fruition early in 1993.
In terms of policy differences, there is a distinction
between policies that the parties espoused for electoral purposes and those they actively
pursued. The 1993 election manifestos revealed no fundamental differences of policy,
though there were some differences of approach, with the YSP favouring a more
interventionist style of government which placed greater emphasis on law and order and
social justice. The real differences lay in the policies both parties chose to pursue in
furtherance of their own rivalry: the GPC presenting itself as the party of unity and the
YSP as the party of democracy. In the narrow context of inter-party struggle, unity and
democracy became codewords for something else: "unity" meant incorporating the
YSP into the northern system without disturbing the status quo, while
"democracy" meant undermining the system of patronage and tribal connections on
which the GPC's power depended.
Relationship between Islah and the GPC: Of all the
parties in Yemen, Islah was probably the most difficult to describe and the easiest to
misunderstand. It had been contradictorily portrayed as fundamentalist, conservative and
radical - all of which was true up to a point, but also untrue, for Islah was nothing if
not inconsistent. Before unification, Islah had been one of the many elements within the
GPC; it then broke away to become a party in its own right under the leadership of Shaykh
Abdullah bin Hussein al-Ahmar, paramount chief of the Hashid tribal confederation - a
title which made him indisputably the most important tribal figure in Yemen.
As a young man, al-Ahmar played a leading role in the
overthrow of the imam and may thus justifiably be considered one of the fathers of modern
Yemen. During the civil war of 1962-70 he took the republican side and later, despite
often pursuing his own agenda, rallied to the president's side in times of national
crisis. The shaykh is a remarkable figure, blending his twin roles of feudal lord and
modern politician with surprising ease. His home in Sana'a is guarded by his own militia,
and the basement contains cells where offending tribesmen can be detained without
burdening the state prison system. The outer walls of the house have large Qur'anic
inscriptions carved into the stone (a fairly recent addition in keeping with Islah's
religious orientation). Though he prefers traditional dress, the youngest of his 20
children wear western clothes, speak fluent English and take holidays in London. In 1993
he became parliamentary Speaker - a role which, despite his party's ambivalence towards
democracy, he has performed highly effectively.
In an interview in 1992, Shaykh Abdullah dismissed all
other opposition parties in Yemen on the grounds that they were merely
"branches" of the two ruling parties. "Therefore Islah is the main and sole
opposition party," he said29. Even before the entry of Islah into the
government coalition in 1993, it was a claim that stretched credulity. As with most
important public figures in the north, the shaykh had at one time belonged to the GPC; the
party's general secretary, Muhammad al-Anisi, enjoyed good relations with the president,
and Muhammad al-Yaddumi, editor of the party's newspaper, al-Sahwah, was often linked to
the president's security apparatus30. The president's tribe, the Sanhan, was
part of the Hashid group which, in tribal terms, made the shaykh senior to the president.
Partly because of these connections, Islah has been described as "not really
fundamentalist but a party of the establishment centre"31.
The name "Islah" in Arabic means
"reform". However, the party had never developed a clear philosophy of
government and remained vague about what these reforms might be. According to Shaykh
Abdullah, Islah was seeking "reform in all walks of life: political, economic and
social, and in relations with our brothers" [i.e. other Arabs]32 The
reforms proposed by the party, as distinct from those advocated by some of its more
extreme members, generally amounted to little more than tinkering with the system: for
example, renaming the parliament "majlis al-shura" (consultative council)
in accordance with Islamic usage, and firm adherence to Islamic principles in dealing with
such documents as the International Declaration of Human Rights33. Dresch
comments: "In these respects Islah's public rhetoric closely resembled that of the
GPC, full of unexceptionably vague resolutions on Islamic equivalents of 'motherhood and
apple pie'." In principle the party also favoured an Islamic economic system,
avoiding the faults of both capitalism and socialism - though what this might entail was
not explained. Interviewed in 1992, Shaykh Abdullah agreed that economic reforms should be
"for the interests of the people" and that an Islamic bank might be established,
but when pressed for more details replied, "I am not an economist"34.
Despite that, the economic policies put forward by Islah in its 1993 election manifesto
led one American observer to describe it as the most pro-business of the three main
parties35.
The GPC's principles, as set out in the National Charter
in 1982 and re-issued in 1993 as part of its electoral programme, reflected similar areas
of concern:
We reject any theory, whether about rule, economics,
politics or social affairs, which contradicts our Islamic faith or our sharia. However, we
believe that it is the right of any individual or group to express or publish their
opinions and ideas, as well as to participate in proper democratic activity to accomplish
these - on condition that they not deviate from the Islamic framework, for ijtihad
[creative interpretation] within this framework is one of the principles of Islam.
From this belief in the totality of the Islamic way, we
see that the most important bases for our practical life lie in a return to the clear
sources of the creed, which consist of the Book of God and the Sunnah of His messenger36.
While this might suggest that the GPC and Islah were not
substantially different, attitudes among the membership of Islah were more varied and
covered virtually every shade of opinion from constitutional pluralism to outright
rejection of parliamentary democracy. Among the religious radicals there was a small
element influenced by Egyptian and Sudanese Islamists, though the home-grown version
propagated by Abd al-Majid al-Zindani, Abd al-Wahhab al-Daylami, and Yasin Qubati was more
influential. All this made Islah an alliance of contradictory forces, though the party did
its best to make a virtue of diversity. Shaykh Abdullah portrayed it as a bird needing
both wings in order to fly37. Less poetically:
Islah is basically a coalition that is bound together by a
flexible attitude and system. This means there is agreement on a minimum base, and beyond
that there may be differences among the various members of the party. These differences
lead to complementarity rather than contradictions38.
Islah, however, was not the only focus for radical Islam
in Yemen. The Salafis, who sought to return directly to the evidence of scripture, were
suspicious not only of parliamentary politics but of the state itself. They also rejected
Islah as an incoherent coalition interested only in opportunism - and to that extent they
were probably right.
Relationship between the YSP and Islah: The
relationship between the YSP and Islah was one in which each demonised and caricatured the
other. The YSP sought to present itself as the party of democracy, modernisation and order
while portraying Islah as representing the forces of disorder and backwardness. Islah in
turn depicted the YSP as a secularist (or occasionally atheistic) party which threatened
to taint Yemen's traditional society with alien values. This mutual antipathy created
"propaganda portraits" of the two parties which can be summarised as follows: |
|
YSP |
|
Islah |
Secularist/atheist ('ilmaniyyah)
|
|
Fundamentalist/obscurantist |
Statist, anti-tribal |
|
Tribal |
Urban |
|
Rural |
Modernist/forward-looking |
|
Traditionalist/backward-looking (takhalluf) |
Western-orientated |
|
Saudi-orientated |
Violently factional |
|
Linked to Islamic terrorism |
|
|
Although both portraits could be supported
by selective use of quotations and examples, neither was truly justified. The notion of
Islah as a party of takhalluf (backwardness) attempted to lump together tribalism,
rural life (including poverty, illiteracy, lawlessness, etc) with religious obscurantism
(i.e. ultra-conservative Islam as opposed to radical fundamentalism). In part this was a
legacy from the YSP's Marxist era which regarded tribalism historically as a precursor of
the state, and therefore an anachronism. This was somewhat at odds with reality in Yemen,
where tribalism had adapted and, far from disappearing, had become incorporated into the
state. Despite the efforts of the socialists to de-tribalise the south, much of the YSP's
own factionalism was tribal in origin. Furthermore, after unification the YSP was not
averse to seeking tactical alliances with northern tribes when the need arose. The
tribal-rural association was also suspect because, as Dresch has pointed out39,
tribalism persisted in the cities. Similarly with the tribal and rural links to religion:
the origins of Islam were urban, not rural, and there is no such thing as "tribal
Islam" (Dresch again). Islah's view of the YSP
tended, in turn, to link 'ilmaniyyah (secularism) with the promotion of Western
values, as this typical denunciation shows:
a group of Muslims have been afflicted. They have made the
abodes of the West their qiblah [their direction of prayer], and they have surrendered
their minds and hearts to the enemies of our ummah who have filled these with whatever
ideas and principles they wished. So they [the Socialists] have been turned into a fifth
column who drive their own nations and peoples, with their wealth and potential, to be
placed as a sacrifice on the altars of the West40.
This, again, was not only exaggerated but made a suspect
connection. Until 1990 the YSP had looked not to the West, but to the Eastern bloc, and
its attitude to secularism was derived mainly from Marxism. However, the party had never
been totally comfortable with the Marxist hostility to religion; instead, it tended to
treat religion as a personal matter which was no business of the state. In general, YSP
members still regarded themselves as Muslims, even if they ignored some of the observances
favoured by their stricter brethren. The party leader, Ali Salim al-Baid, had four wives
in accordance with Islamic law while the prominent northern member, Jarallah 'Umar, who
had studied at al-Azhar university in Egypt was adept at using Islamic texts in support of
socialism. After the fall of communism, the party began to reorientate its international
relations and develop links with - among others - the Americans. That was a natural
response to the changed situation rather than a sign of enthusiasm for Western values.
American support was not the only target for YSP diplomacy but it became an important
prize in the context of north-south rivalry, especially after the Gulf War severely
damaged relations between President Salih and the US. In the event, the YSP's approaches
were not fully reciprocated: the Americans were friendly but non-committal and when war
came in 1994 it was Arab (undemocratic and Muslim) states, not Western countries, which
proved to be the YSP's most steadfast friends.
Amid the welter of mutual accusations, two points should
not be forgotten, however. One is that despite their apparent incompatibility both Islah
and the YSP contained substantial elements which in most respects were virtually
indistinguishable from the GPC. The second is that during the first half of the 1990s the
Saudis saw fit to support both Islah and the YSP, certainly consecutively but
possibly simultaneously.
© Brian Whitaker |
|
|
|
1. Constitution of the Republic
of Yemen (1990), Article 39.
2. Law No 66 (1991) Governing Parties and Political Organisations. Article 2.
3. This was probably at the behest of the GPC. The word "party" had been
regularly used in the south before unification, whereas the north had avoided it (see
chapter 3).
4. Law No 66, Article 3.
5. al-Bishari, Ahmed Ali (editor of al-Thawabit journal) in preface to Manea, op cit.
6. Law No 66, Article 8.
7. Ibid. Article 3.
8. Ibid. Article 10.
9. Ibid. Article 11.
10. Ibid. Article 17 (d).
11. Ibid. Article 8 (vii).
12. Ibid. Article 8 (vii).
13. Ibid. Article 33.
14. Ibid. Article 8 (ix).
15. Ibid. Article 8 (iv).
16. Ibid. Article 9 (b).
17. Ibid. Article 14 (b).
18. On the basis of the 1993 election results, the GPC would have been entitled to 36% of
the total, the YSP to 25%, Islah to 23%, and five other parties to 3% each.
19. Law No 66, Article 17.
20. Ibid, Article 14.
21. Ibid. Article 13.
22. Ibid. Article 34.
23. Anonymous article, "Will the opposition political parties stay in
business?", Yemen Times, 19 February, 1996. |
24. Ibid. Article 13.
25. Middle East Watch, Vol 4, Issue 10, November 1992. (Human Rights Watch, New York).
26. Manea, op cit. p 253.
27. Dresch, Paul and Haykel, Bernard: Stereotypes and political styles - Islamists and
tribesfolk in Yemen. International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol 27, No 4, November
1995.
28. Author's interview, December 1991.
29. Author's interview, November 1992.
30. Dresch and Haykel, op cit.
31. Dresch and Haykel, op cit.
32. Author's interview, November 1992.
33. Resolutions from "The Conference of Unity and Peace," in San'a' from 27 to
30 December 1992. Cited by Dresch and Haykel, op cit.
34. Author's interview, November 1992.
35. Author's interview with David Warburton, Director of American Institute of Yemeni
Studies, Sana'a, March 1994.
36. Quoted by Dresch and Haykel, op cit.
37. Dresch and Haykel, op cit.
38. Fares al-Saqqaf, deputy director of information for Islah, interviewed by Yemen Times,
8 July, 1992.
39. Dresch and Haykel, op cit. See also Mundy, Martha: Domestic government - kinship,
community and polity in north Yemen, Tauris, London, 1995.
40. Dresch and Haykel, op cit, citing al-Nur, August 1992, p18. |
|
|