Elections, But No Democracy

By MADRE, An International Women’s Human Rights Organization: madre@madre.org, first published by www.commondreams.org

On January 9, Palestinians voted in a presidential election for the first time since 1996. To most people in the US, elections connote a democratic system of government. But elections without sovereignty don’t equal democracy. The Palestinian territories, where voting took place, have been under Israeli military occupation for 37 years—a fact that won’t be changed by the elections. Israel uses violence to control all aspects of Palestinian life, from freedom of movement to freedom of the press, precluding “free and fair” elections from the start. Under their newly elected president, Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinians will still lack control over their territory, economy, and foreign and domestic policies. This raises a question about what, exactly, the new president will preside over.

President of What?

Mainstream media coverage implied that these were elections for the new president of “Palestine.” But no independent Palestinian state exists. Rather, Abbas will head the Palestinian Authority (PA), a body created under the defunct, US-sponsored Oslo Agreements signed by the Palestinian leadership and Israel in 1993. The PA has been under attack by Israel since 2000. But prior to that, Israel and the US allowed the PA to administer limited aspects of Palestinian public life (education, health, municipal and taxation services) in exchange for guaranteeing security to Israel, mainly by cracking down on Palestinian militants.

In the current framework, Abbas will have only as much power as US-backed Israel grants him. Remember that Yasser Arafat, the late PA president, spent the last years of his life under permanent house arrest for refusing to forfeit Palestinian rights guaranteed by UN resolutions and international law. Once Arafat refused to meet Israel’s demands, the US branded him “irrelevant” and began pressuring Palestinians to hold elections for a new PA president.

Only a minority of Palestinians — those living in the Occupied Territories — were eligible to vote. Unlike the elections in Afghanistan and those scheduled in Iraq, Palestinians living abroad as refugees or exiles were barred from voting.

Many Palestinians, including supporters of the two militant Islamic factions, boycotted the elections because they saw them as part of a bankrupt political process meant to facilitate ongoing Israeli control of the Occupied Territories.

Others — including Abbas’ main challenger, long-time human rights activist Dr. Mustafa Barghouti — saw the elections as part of a broader process of building democratic Palestinian institutions and as a precondition for producing a PA president with legitimate authority to negotiate with Israel. Palestinian progressives like Bargouti have reminded the world that Palestinians have a distinguished democratic tradition, developed in opposition to decades of Israeli occupation.

"Israelis Elect New Palestinian Leader"

Satirical headlines like the one above from the Electronic Intifada reflect Israeli interference in the election. Israeli soldiers beat, arrested, and restricted the movement of all Palestinian candidates except the favored Abbas, preventing other candidates from effectively campaigning against him. In fact, five of the 11 original candidates stood down, citing Israeli restrictions on their freedom to campaign.

Israeli violence against Palestinians continued unabated throughout the campaign period. Israeli soldiers killed nearly 30 Palestinians, including six boys from one family, during the campaign season.

We’ve heard that Israel “facilitated” voting by withdrawing troops from parts of the Occupied Territories. But the troops were redeployed right after the election. The reality is that elections under military occupation are never truly democratic.

Elections at Gunpoint

After the death of long-time Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, many Palestinians saw this election as a chance to choose a PA president with whom Israel would agree to negotiate. This was a critical consideration for many people who have suffered tremendously during four years of escalated Israeli assaults. Since 2000, nearly 3,500 Palestinians have been killed, and poverty and child malnutrition rates have tripled.

As society’s primary caretakers, Palestinian women are overwhelmingly responsible for the wellbeing of thousands who have been traumatized and wounded by Israeli violence, and women are particularly hard-hit by the wide scale destruction of homes, clinics, public infrastructure, and supplies of food and drinking water.

In fact, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon has described these measures as a tactic for eroding Palestinians’ resolve to reject Israeli terms at the negotiating table.

Like the terrorists he condemns, Sharon has made ordinary women and families suffer in order to induce political results, in this case, the election of Abbas, a presumably conciliatory negotiating partner.

Undermining Democracy and Human Rights: The US Role

Bush sees the Palestinian elections, like those planned in Iraq, as part of a broader US plan for overhauling governments throughout the Middle East.

Bush strongly favored Abbas, who rejects armed struggle as a strategy for ending Israeli occupation. Bush promised to facilitate $500 million more in international aid to the PA if Abbas won.

The US will now likely push for a resumption of negotiations between Israel and the PA. But the same politics that doomed the Oslo Agreements remain at play.

The US supports Israel almost unconditionally: Bush has endorsed Israeli plans to annex much of the West Bank (in violation of the UN Charter); denied Palestinian refugees’ right to return to their lands in what is now Israel (guaranteed by UN Resolution 194); and condoned Israel’s illegal West Bank settlements. Meanwhile, Bush’s 2003 “roadmap” indicates that he will pressure Palestinians to sign agreements that disregard human rights and international law.

What Next?

Abbas faces a real dilemma: he was elected despite being the favored candidate of his constituents’ two biggest perceived enemies, Israel and the US. Palestinians are adamant that he not negotiate away basic rights, while Israel and the US insist that he do just that.

Abbas has already shown himself willing to make concessions, but progress towards peace will depend on the US and Israel realizing that the political impasse cannot be resolved by military force.

Ultimately, Abbas will be judged not by the fact that he was elected to office, but by how he negotiates with Israel. Despite Israeli/US attempts to dominate the elections and the PA itself, the elections were important: they demonstrated yet again that Palestinians have the collective will and the political culture to create democratic government. They lack only the freedom to do so.
 

BACK TO TOP ■  COMMENT

© 2004 Bulatlat ■  Alipato Publications

Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.