President Bush and Democracy in the ME: Contradictions and Chaos!

Back to Opinions Page

The Bush administration has been worried: Hamas and Islamic Jihad might gain a foothold in the Palestinian legislature.  To avoid such a "calamity", the administration has been urging President Mahmoud Abbas to apply a litmus test to ensure that candidates for the coming election must have renounced "unlawful and non-democratic" methods.  Such urging seems to have been an echo of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's threat that Israel would not help to facilitate elections if Hamas and Jihad were to participate. At first it seems benign or even healthy to bar from electing and being elected individuals who use unlawful and undemocratic methods to achieve their objectives.  However, deeper contemplation of such action would uncover serious flaws in a policy that bars citizens from exercising their right to elect and be elected. Such a policy, at the behest of external influences, would mean acceptance and encouragement of foreign interference, disregard for the principles of democracy, hindrance of the process of peace and stability, and an incitement to civil war in Palestine.

First, it is a mistake for a foreign country to pressure the Palestinians to reform their political system, adopt democracy, and establish a government elected by the people, and then turn around and interfere in their attempts to do so. If the Palestinians need guidance in building democracy, expert help may be in order if requested. But it is of little help and may even be destructive to impose conditions on the electorate by outsiders and infringe on their rights.  The Palestinians are familiar with the principles and practice of democracy, in part through education and the preaching of western politicians and experts, and in part by observing how the Israelis practice their democracy.  Israel does not set up a litmus test for its voters and candidates for office, nor does the United States (US).  Israeli extremists from left and right sit in the Knesset (Parliament), and so do ultra conservatives and liberals in the US Congress, and neither of both of these extremist groups has been asked to disarm as a pre-condition for electing and being elected.  It is true that members of these groups rarely commit terror or violence against civilians, but that is because they are the occupiers and not the occupied, and also because the military of their respective countries carry out the terror acts on their behalf.

Second, interfering in the Palestinian elections by urging the Palestinian Authority (PA) to bar any body from the elections itself is unlawful, and can be a destablizer, given the large number of Hamas and Jihad who may be subject to exclusion. Excluding such large number would make a farce of the elections. It is ironic that the US urging to bar Hamas from the elections comes just when Sharon has retreated and withdrawn his objections to the participation of Hamas.  It is also ironic and hypocritical for the US to urge Sunni Muslims in Iraq, who are behind the violent insurgency, to participate fully in the elections, but object to the participation of Hamas and Jihad.  The US knows that all these resistance groups direct their violence against the occupation, and use similar methods.

Third, probably to make its requests seem logical, the US bases the urging to bar Hamas and Jihad on a 1996 Palestinian law, which requires candidates to the parliament not to "commit or advocate racism" or "pursue the implementation of their aims by unlawful and non-democratic means."  But that law says nothing about resistance to foreign occupation.  It is a national law that relates to behavior towards others and respect for the laws of the country, as would be expressed in the oath of office all elected officials and political appointees are expected to take.  Nothing in the oath of office protects foreign occupation.  On the contrary, the laws of the country call for freedom and liberty, not submission to occupation and oppression.  This interpretation of the 1996 law is especially relevant in view of the fact that the PA and the sitting government in Iraq are not recognized as sovereign powers, nor do they enjoy reciprocity agreements with the occupying countries in the treatment of their own citizens by those other countries.

Fourth, the US urging to bar Hamas and Jihad from the elections, unless they abandon violent resistance to occupation is itself undemocratic. On one hand, democracy does not allow barring citizens from exercising their voting rights.  On the other, the Palestinian people have not voted on such a measure, nor have they been consulted.  Evidently, to avoid having "undesirable" Palestinians sit in Parliament, the US is ready to bend the rules and compromise the principles of democracy, at least in far away places, for example Palestine.

Fifth, the contradictions in the US approach to Palestinian democracy are evident in another way. On one hand the US wants Hamas and Jihad to disarm and become players in the politics of the country. On the other hand, it objects when President Abbas tries to co-opt those groups and integrate them into the political system. Once members of Hamas and Jihad are elected, they would have to take the oath of office, which precludes the use of unlawful and undemocratic means in pursuing their objectives.  Thus, barring them from participation in the elections means preventing their co-optation and integration into the democratic systém under construction. Furthermore, excluding those groups from the elections renders the parliament no longer representative of all factions of the people, which again is in contradiction with the principles of democracy. The US may have forgotten what happened when it supported the Algerian army in preventing Islamic winners in the election from assuming power in proportion to their winnings: civil war and the re-establishment of a military dictatorship, though   dressed up as a democracy.

Sixth, the US administration and Israel do have a point in urging an end to terror or violence against civilians, and against Israel in general.  But ending terror should apply to all parties and to all forms of terror, including suicide bombing, speeding car shooting, helicopter gunship assassinations, appropriation of land and eviction of innocent civilians from their land and property, and humiliation of the occupied people in their daily life.

Seventh, it may be easier to persuade Hamas and Jihad to disarm by co-opting them than by excluding them from the political process.  For example, it may be more effective to convince them to disarm if they can see real hope that the occupation will end in proportion to their disarming, in one location after another.  It may also be helpful if they could be assured that Israel would put an end to expansionism into Palestinian territory, which betrays intentions of perpetuating occupation.  Furthermore, any reduction of occupation must be genuine and complete, rather than a gimmick for public relations purposes, the way Israel's withdrawal from Gaza has been.

Finally, the US can help President Abbas in his attempts to put an end to violence by convincing Israel to go back to the negotiations table, comply with the Road Map, end its use of excessive force, and ease conditions to allow the Palestinians to develop their economy and rehabilitate their society.  Only then can the US claim to be on the side of democracy, stability, and peace between Israel and Palestine and in the Middle East region at large.