the aftermath of the palestinian elections
Hamas has won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, ending Fatah's decades-old dominance of the Palestinian national movement.
A few thoughts and links--given that most predictions and polls right up until yesterday envisaged a strong Hamas showing, but not a win, I wonder if the recent revelation that the US had been pumping money into the campaign to support Fatah may have actually tipped the balance? If so, a strong example of one of my practical objections to even non-military forms of US "democracy promotion"--given the way the US is presently perceived in the region, our interference taints anyone who's seen as connected to us, depriving them of authenticity and support. So US backing of moderate parties, movements, and civil society organizations may actually damage their political chances.
Next, for all that the results are troubling, cheers to the Palestinians for what was undoubtedly the cleanest and most peaceful election, with the widest range of political choice, that the Arab Middle East has seen in a long time. Turnout was high--about 75% accross the board. Cheers, too, to the Israeli authorities for maintaining a relatively hands-off approach (although there were still disturbing restrictions on voting in East Jerusalem). And Fatah is respecting the results; the current PM and Cabinet have resigned in the wake of the Hamas victory. This is how elections are supposed to work.
Like everybody else, I'm wondering what comes next. The worst-case scenarios are pretty awful and equally obvious, and there are already some worrisome signs. But there's also the chance that having to deal with the challenges of governance will compel Hamas to moderate its position with respect to negotiation with Israel, as well as forcing it to deal with domestic political needs--jobs, government services, the everyday work of running a country. If it fails at one or both of these tasks, the outcome may discredit the Islamists, or at the least throw the ball back into the court of a younger generation of grassroots secular-nationalist politicians. I'm also wondering how Hamas' religious platform will play out in the West Bank, where the population is more secular and where most Christian Palestinians live. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the votes for Hamas stemmed from frustration with Fatah and Israel rather than from a genuine embrace of Islamist ideology. If that's true, Hamas will either have to govern with a light touch on social issues, or risk a backlash.
Additionally, it's going to be interesting to see how the international community's response--thus far very cautious--plays out. The case of Palestine is in many ways a specific one, but in a broader context, the U.S. and Europe are going to have to learn how to deal with these kinds of troubling victories if they're serious about supporting democracy in the Middle East (and other parts of the developing world). Chances are that if freer elections continue to occur, a lot of Islamist parties (especially Ikhwan, or Muslim Brotherhood, derived ones) are going to start winning. An international response that balances respect for the validity of democratic choice with the very real concerns about religious parties in power (from the potential fallout in women's and minority rights to the chances of Turkey or Algeria-style coups) is necessary. International engagement may also be important in preserving the independence of government structures such as the Palestinian Central Election Commission, and ensuring that Hamas respects the outcome of future elections. Above all, if anything the US says about supporting democracy is ever going to be taken seriously in the Middle East, we're going to have to show some willingness to back up the talk with action (or inaction, as the case may be).
Finally, the residents of the occupied Palestinian territories voted yesterday, but many others who claim a stake in the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict--the members of the Palestinian diaspora, particularly those who remain refugees in neighboring countries--did not. I think it's a good thing that politics in Palestine are becoming local, that the generation of leaders who came of age in exile are being replaced by people more rooted in the communities they represent. But it's worth remembering that the interests of the refugees--especially in any peace deal that renounces the right of return--should also be represented. The people living in the Beirut camps don't get to vote in anybody's elections. The Civitas project at Oxford, launched by Palestinian political theorist Karma Nabulsi, is researching ways of creating structures of civic representation in the refugee communities, in hopes of giving these people a voice in future peace negotiations.
For more information and smarter analysis, check out Ha'aretz, the Head Heeb (whose election coverage is detailed and thoughtful, as always), the Electronic Intifada, Abu Aardvark, and fellow-Oxonian Lawrence of Cyberia. The Guardian's coverage has also been good.
A few thoughts and links--given that most predictions and polls right up until yesterday envisaged a strong Hamas showing, but not a win, I wonder if the recent revelation that the US had been pumping money into the campaign to support Fatah may have actually tipped the balance? If so, a strong example of one of my practical objections to even non-military forms of US "democracy promotion"--given the way the US is presently perceived in the region, our interference taints anyone who's seen as connected to us, depriving them of authenticity and support. So US backing of moderate parties, movements, and civil society organizations may actually damage their political chances.
Next, for all that the results are troubling, cheers to the Palestinians for what was undoubtedly the cleanest and most peaceful election, with the widest range of political choice, that the Arab Middle East has seen in a long time. Turnout was high--about 75% accross the board. Cheers, too, to the Israeli authorities for maintaining a relatively hands-off approach (although there were still disturbing restrictions on voting in East Jerusalem). And Fatah is respecting the results; the current PM and Cabinet have resigned in the wake of the Hamas victory. This is how elections are supposed to work.
Like everybody else, I'm wondering what comes next. The worst-case scenarios are pretty awful and equally obvious, and there are already some worrisome signs. But there's also the chance that having to deal with the challenges of governance will compel Hamas to moderate its position with respect to negotiation with Israel, as well as forcing it to deal with domestic political needs--jobs, government services, the everyday work of running a country. If it fails at one or both of these tasks, the outcome may discredit the Islamists, or at the least throw the ball back into the court of a younger generation of grassroots secular-nationalist politicians. I'm also wondering how Hamas' religious platform will play out in the West Bank, where the population is more secular and where most Christian Palestinians live. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the votes for Hamas stemmed from frustration with Fatah and Israel rather than from a genuine embrace of Islamist ideology. If that's true, Hamas will either have to govern with a light touch on social issues, or risk a backlash.
Additionally, it's going to be interesting to see how the international community's response--thus far very cautious--plays out. The case of Palestine is in many ways a specific one, but in a broader context, the U.S. and Europe are going to have to learn how to deal with these kinds of troubling victories if they're serious about supporting democracy in the Middle East (and other parts of the developing world). Chances are that if freer elections continue to occur, a lot of Islamist parties (especially Ikhwan, or Muslim Brotherhood, derived ones) are going to start winning. An international response that balances respect for the validity of democratic choice with the very real concerns about religious parties in power (from the potential fallout in women's and minority rights to the chances of Turkey or Algeria-style coups) is necessary. International engagement may also be important in preserving the independence of government structures such as the Palestinian Central Election Commission, and ensuring that Hamas respects the outcome of future elections. Above all, if anything the US says about supporting democracy is ever going to be taken seriously in the Middle East, we're going to have to show some willingness to back up the talk with action (or inaction, as the case may be).
Finally, the residents of the occupied Palestinian territories voted yesterday, but many others who claim a stake in the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict--the members of the Palestinian diaspora, particularly those who remain refugees in neighboring countries--did not. I think it's a good thing that politics in Palestine are becoming local, that the generation of leaders who came of age in exile are being replaced by people more rooted in the communities they represent. But it's worth remembering that the interests of the refugees--especially in any peace deal that renounces the right of return--should also be represented. The people living in the Beirut camps don't get to vote in anybody's elections. The Civitas project at Oxford, launched by Palestinian political theorist Karma Nabulsi, is researching ways of creating structures of civic representation in the refugee communities, in hopes of giving these people a voice in future peace negotiations.
For more information and smarter analysis, check out Ha'aretz, the Head Heeb (whose election coverage is detailed and thoughtful, as always), the Electronic Intifada, Abu Aardvark, and fellow-Oxonian Lawrence of Cyberia. The Guardian's coverage has also been good.
posted by kitabet at 3:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home