PERCEPTIONS OF DEMOCRATISATION AMONGST THE MAIN PALESTINIAN POLITICAL PARTIES: HAMAS AND FATAH

Transcription

1 PERCEPTIONS OF DEMOCRATISATION AMONGST THE MAIN PALESTINIAN POLITICAL PARTIES: HAMAS AND FATAH Presented by Dr Michelle Pace, University of Birmingham Held at the offices of the United Nations Development Programme, Jerusalem, Report on the Proceedings Prepared by Valentina Kostadinova, Honorary Research Associate, ESRC Project on Paradoxes and Contradictions in EU Democracy Promotion Efforts in the Middle East, University of Birmingham The session was opened by Naomi Nobel who introduced Dr Michelle Pace and stressed that this is the first time that a UNDP Learning Session is focused on political issues. She also emphasised that all the views expressed during the session will be taken as personal and NOT those of the United Nation Development Programme s (UNDP). Dr Pace started the presentation by clarifying that its main focus is the political parties landscape in Palestine. The Palestinian Authority, she argued, is the recognised party (via Fatah) but Hamas won the elections in 2006, which is why these two were considered the main parties in Palestine. Therefore, the presentation focused on both of them. The first main point that Michelle Pace made was that reflexivity on the part of the researcher in Palestine is crucial and this plays out at several levels. Firstly, the rationale of her project is a reflexive one because it endeavours to examine how the meaning of democracy in a contested space is understood. Secondly, the research subjects are reflexive themselves because they have a space for open criticism, which could potentially lead to a truly dialogic encounter between the researcher and her subjects. Thirdly, the researcher herself took a reflexive stance as she regards perceptions of active interviewer versus passive interviewee as a misnomer. For her the moment of communication is a form of inquiry itself. Michelle Pace continued with a brief summary of the democratisation process in Palestine. She said that the democracy in this case is indirect (representative) and the criteria for it is free elections that give choice, that the elected representatives have rights as well as that every citizen has guaranteed basic rights. However, she also pointed out that democracy is a highly contested concept. Therefore, it is context dependent where the term has some degree of inherently anchored meaning but at the same time there is a margin of contestation. This makes the concept of democracy a fluid, floating one. During the January 2006 elections there were 450 international observers and a 186-member EU Election Observation Mission, which overwhelmingly concluded that overall this was a free, fair and transparent election. In it Hamas won 74 seats at the 132-seat chamber (54%) and the Palestinian 1

2 National Movement (Fatah) came second with 36% of the seats. This constituted a major shift in the political landscape, which prior to these elections had been dominated by the secular nationalist Fatah. This was a great concern for the international community due to what they perceive as an ambiguous stance on the peace process by Hamas. However, as Dr Pace pointed out, such references to the Westphalian structure of nation states as the only legitimate framework for the use of violence in this case does not translate into a similar position with regards to Israeli settlers actions. Dr Pace argued that, against the backdrop of democracy in the Middle Eastern region, where the praxis of democracy is in short supply, where regimes want political reforms but do not want to surrender power or to share it and where opposition forces want change but do not manage to generate enough substance in their programmes for alternatives, Hamas emerges as genuine in its democratic convictions as any other political party. They did in fact agree to share power with Fatah and to negotiate with Israel in February It is still possible that Hamas will develop politically in a similar way as Fatah did. Fatah has undergone several transformations in its recent history: from a military resistance movement to a governing political faction; from negotiators to developers of a political agenda; to creators of a movement caught between armed and non-violent resistance options and a party which has to perform as a player in the international arena. Against this backdrop Dr Pace traced the phases of Hamas development as an opposition movement. According to her there were five phases in Hamas evolution. The first phase started in and lasted until the late 1980s when the First Intifada erupted. During that time Hamas was a social, reformist, communal movement. It had its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood in the region and by and large until the outbreak of the First Intifada was a non-violent movement. It was only in 1987 (when Hamas was established) when the transformation from a social to a political movement occurred. This was also when the Hamas Charter, Al-Mithaq (The Covenant) was adopted. It was framed in highly religious terms, called for the destruction of Israel and proclaimed the establishment of an Islamic state as a long-term goal for the movement. Nevertheless, Dr Pace emphasised that this Charter is more often cited by Hamas critics rather than Hamas itself. The second phase started with the First Intifada and lasted until 1993 when the Oslo Agreement was signed. During that time Israel sought to crack down on Hamas, which is why executive powers were transferred to the Ikhwan outside the Palestinian Territories. It was also during this period that the military wing of the movement emerged. When the PLO and Arafat gained international recognition Hamas coexisted with them and did not confront the Palestinian Authority. When the Oslo Agreement was signed, Hamas did not recognise nor did they reject it but soon after they opposed it. They adopted suicide bombings in response to an Israeli massacre of Palestinians praying in a mosque in Hebron. The third phase started after the Oslo Agreements and lasted until During that period Hamas evolved into a pragmatic movement and a political party. Important developments during this period were the assassinations between 2001 and 2004 of Hamas founders and the decision of the movement to participate in the 2006 general elections. The latter was a result of the positive outcomes for Hamas from the 2005 municipal elections. With regards to its position on democracy and power sharing, at that time Hamas accepted that democracy is compatible with Islam but in the Change and Reform Platform the discourse on democracy, rule of law, etc. was vague or non-existent. The fourth phase started after the 2006 general elections. Initially, Hamas was nominated to compose the government but soon after that clan politics emerged. Furthermore, the international community imposed sanctions on Hamas, which led it to seek alternative mechanisms. In mid-2007 the tension within the Palestinian ruling factions erupted in an open conflict in which the US supported the armed forces of Fatah. The outcome of these clashes was the dissolution of the National Unity Government by President Abbas 2

3 and the formation of an emergency government led by Salaam Fayyad and the seizure of full control of Gaza by Hamas. During December January 2009 Israel conducted a military incursion into Gaza. Dr Pace speculated whether this development of Hamas could be interpreted as a post-islamist phase. The reasons for this were that there are signs in Hamas policy of adaptation and compromise between doctrine and praxis, fluid and flexible stances that the movement adopts according to contexts and which allow Hamas to ensure continued support. There is also recognition that certain interests and norms have to be shared with others, for instance, the location of religious symbols, political power and social interests, in a particular context of cultural and social relations. Although Hamas challenge to Fatah is not new, at present it is arguably felt doubly by Fatah due to its own weakened position that stems from its own intra-party divisions, mainly between the so-called old and new guards. Thus, the biggest challenge today for Fatah is to simultaneously maintain unity among its own ranks and to perform its role and tasks effectively. In order to succeed it has to resolve successfully its leadership crisis and to prove its ability to develop a coherent vision for the future. In conclusion Dr Pace posed the question of whether Hamas is a project in the making or is it rather an opportunistic moment in the illusion of democracy in the Middle East? She also offered several reflections on advocacy. Namely, she argued that what is urgently needed is a Palestinian strategy and vision for the future across the factional lines. Importantly this has to be done without Egyptian, US or EU interference. This is because so far EU/US interferences have backfired (that is, the build-up to the 2007 clashes) and have shown little respect and understanding for Palestinian law, constitution and democratic processes. Another shortcoming of external interventions so far has been the inability to understand, appreciate and compensate for the traditional power imbalance between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This presentation was followed by a lively discussion. A series of questions were posed and comments made by the participants. The first contributor said that the tactical changes in Hamas behaviour have been many but he wondered whether there has been any strategic change since the 1980s. The second contributor thanked Michelle Pace for the excellent presentation and argued that he finds Michelle s topic a relatively under-researched one, especially given the enormous amount of financial and rhetorical investment by the international community for the development of Palestinian statehood. There is also he argued a degree of unwillingness on behalf of the international community to admit mistakes in their interventions in this case. More specifically, according to him, the heavy international subsidy had put the Palestinian Authority (PA) off from making some difficult decisions that should have been made a long time ago. Therefore, arguably, the situation today is that the Palestinians have dug a hole so deep that they could only keep digging. This has resulted in the international community arriving at a level of self-censorship on several important issues. Firstly, the international community is fearful that a lot of taxpayers money has led to a regression in Palestinian development and institution-building. Secondly, the international community does not want to appear unsympathetic to the noble cause of contributing to the creation of Palestinian statehood. In light of this situation, the participant asked firstly, whether Dr Pace had any idea as to how such a debate could be actively stimulated, so that credible players are brought in together and candidly point out where mistakes have been made. Secondly, he was interested in what would happen if the PA dissolves and the Israelis are required to take-up their duty as an occupying force (under international law)? Another participant pointed out that Hamas inability to control the more extreme groups in Gaza that use force is never juxtaposed with the Israeli settlers paramilitary movement. She emphasised that settlers are not denied access to arms and they are supported in every possible way in their use of violence. Therefore, she asked whether these two approaches to violence could be aligned 3

4 or at least, from an international legal perspective, could be recognised in that what the settlers do is a paramilitary form of engagement and not an un-organised action. She continued to argue that there are many ways in which Israeli settlements are run by an organised military movement. Another contributor took issue with this point and clarified that this group is an organised military movement within a military movement because soldiers protect settlers and military law is applied. This was pointed out as an important matter to recognise. Therefore, the two participants concluded that this is a dual-justice system. Lastly, a participant asked whether Dr Pace thought that there could be an agreement between Hamas and Fatah on the rules of the game although, as was pointed out during the presentation, she was sceptical about the two parties reaching a comprehensive agreement (on power-sharing or a coalition). He said that in his point of view that was what the Egyptian mediation had come to in the end after realising that an agreement on a comprehensive coalition was unattainable. Dr Pace answered each of the questions in turn. On the first, she said that in her opinion Hamas has been forced into making strategic rather than tactical changes because of the context they are working in. In her view, Hamas is trying hard because they know that their legitimacy lies in how popular they remain with the Gazans. Currently Gazans are very afraid of what is going on. Hamas, feeling the reduction in their popular support, tries to make various moves that somehow compensate that. In her opinion that is why Hamas have made the strategic moves of talking to Egyptians about relations with Fatah, to the Israelis about Gilad Shalit, etc. because they know that they have not delivered on two fronts recently: firstly, keeping Gaza as safe and stable as possible and secondly in meeting the basic needs of Gazans. Hamas want to give people the feeling that something is being done. But a scenario that hits against this strategy is that Hamas is getting drugged with power, they have became part of the political game and as a result people have stopped trusting them and have stopped seeing them as their representatives. This leaves Palestinians without an alternative party. Michelle summed her position by saying that Hamas is trying hard but the trigger to that is their popularity and if that goes then Hamas will start having real problems in terms of strategy. To the second set of questions she responded that the point about self-censorship is a very good one and that the cause for which Palestinians are fighting is very well embedded in European citizens psychological make-up, which very often prompts, for example, protests in London. On the issue of how to stimulate the debate so that the international community could be seen as credible players she said (that her argument during the presentation she had delivered the day before at the Kenyon Institute was) that the key task for the EU is now to win back its credibility with the Palestinians. But she emphasised that this was not going to be easy because today the Palestinians are saying to the EU to stop throwing money at them and that what they need is a political solution. Here the contributor who had raised these queries expressed disagreement saying that the West had sent $600 million just a few months ago to cover PA staff costs. Michelle Pace said that this is a reality the West has to live with because Palestinian people have to live on something. But in her opinion, in accordance with its obligations under the Geneva Convention it is Israel that is obliged to pay (as the occupying force). This is contrary to what happens today on the ground, where Israel destroys what has been built with EU money without even facing complaints from the Union. Thus, Dr Pace maintained that the West only accentuates the problem. Therefore, she argued that unless there was a clear idea of what the international community s aims were and how they were going to be achieved, any involvement would only further contribute to diminished credibility of international actors. Michelle Pace also said that when Obama was elected President of the US she was sceptical despite the hope that many held that this would trigger significant changes in the Middle East. On this issue one of the participants 4

5 pointed out that Obama had, thus far, not made a single anti-israeli statement during the whole election campaign. Thus, in conclusion Michelle repeated that without a clear vision for change she remains sceptical. In response to the question about the possible scenarios if the PA collapses, Dr Pace said that the recent statements by the Netanyahu government make her think that Israel does not want to re-occupy the West Bank. Therefore, she thinks a PA collapse is highly unlikely. In her opinion Abbas is playing a game, he wants to get the Americans attention and to prompt them to give him something, so that he can regain some popular support. The other dangerous game she sees at play is how in the present context Israel uses Iran in the current discussions. For her, the international community is not seriously questioning the Israeli agenda and at the end of the day Israel has been targeting Iran since the 2003 war in Iraq. In response to further questions Michelle said that if she worked in an international organisation she would prepare a document for the Israeli government highlighting how the conflict and in particular Israel s understanding of security is psychologically affecting many Israeli families and especially children. She gave the example of an experiment she participated in during a research project she was involved in. This exercise required Israeli and Palestinian children aged between 6 and 9 to depict the Other. None of the participants depicted a peaceful image. The Palestinians depicted the Israelis as soldiers and settlers and the Israelis drew the Palestinians as suicide bombers on buses blowing up. According to Dr Pace, Israel should re-think its concept of security and move away from its current overwhelming focus on military security because this is destructing its own society. According to the Israeli families she had interviewed they feel secure only within the four walls of their homes. Once they are outside, if there is a wall for example, it affects the Israelis as much as the Palestinians. Therefore, for her, the international community should try and make Israel re-think its concept of security from a human perspective because currently it is destroying the very fabric of Israeli society. On the question on the rules of the game Dr Pace said that this could be a starting ground for reaching consensus but that it was important that the Palestinian parties were committed to the established rules of the game. For her establishing these rules was not enough. Without a real commitment from both sides this could easily become a temporary fix, which in the long run would not bring about real change. She, however, pointed out again that she remains sceptical because there should be a commitment from both sides to the rules that are agreed. Currently, both sides have huge expectations on what they desire from the other. Dr Pace concluded this round of responses by saying that she would like the Palestinian people to be heard more because they are very well versed in their political milieu and if Palestinian politicians listened to them they would get better advise than that they get from the international community. At the moment this connection was lacking and that was where for Michelle democracy was very feeble on the Palestinian landscape. A second round of questions and comments followed. One participant queried whether the last opinion Michelle had shared about the Palestinians was because they had lost faith in their institutions or whether because the institutions were not designed in a way that allowed ordinary Palestinians opinions to be heard. In response, Michelle Pace said that firstly there was not enough openness in the Palestinian political system and that secondly, in her opinion, the people had lost faith not only in the institutions but also in the people, the politicians, their supposed representatives, who Palestinians see as corrupt and self-interested individuals. She gave the example of the Director of a very large NGO in Ramallah, who had not been elected but was still holding the position of director of the NGO after many years. Thus, this affects not only the politicians but also the supposed core of civil society. Another participant questioned whether the fact that the Palestinians were not represented by anyone 5

6 could as an issue be raised as a kind of popular struggle and if this was a move in the Palestinian society s search for non-violent expression and self-organisation. Michelle Pace agreed that that was what had happened; that people were just trying to take things in their own hands because they had no support. Theoretically Dr Pace mentioned the book by Aletta Norval on Aversive Democracy which gives a very good picture of what people do when they lose hope in everything that is supposed to represent all that they are struggling for. For her this is exactly what we are witnessing in Palestine and Egypt in small villages, the small protests when people go into the streets because no-one represents them. Maybe therefore, it is necessary to look into the Indian model, which could be the way forward (in terms of non-violent resistance towards peace). Another participant commented that the Indian context was however a different one. It was pointed out that currently in Palestine there was no democracy, many people are arrested for expressing themselves. He also suggested that a solution could be to get new representatives in Israel and Palestine because at the moment the representatives from both sides have military backgrounds. Furthermore, in his point of view, the international community was trying to solve the problem only by giving money, which is not feasible. Also, the neighbouring countries would not allow a working democracy in Palestine. Another intervention from the floor maintained that the only solution is for a big earthquake to destroy everything, so that the communities can be re-built from scratch. The same participant also agreed that all the Arab states around Palestine do not want a well-functioning Palestinian state. In response to these questions and comments Michelle Pace said that she was worried when she heard talk about the new generations because even children are embedded with certain indoctrinations, irrespective of whether Palestinian or Israeli. It was necessary to change for example texts on history from the Israeli and the Palestinian sides so that people would be able to see the other s point of view. Furthermore, Michelle pointed out that some Israeli academics that have tried to do just that and rewrite history had been expelled from Israel. Here a participant intervened and said that it is not a question of re-writing history but of telling the truth. He shared that his whole village lost all it had to the Israelis. Therefore, he was asking what people expect them to do. He said Palestinians survive, they live together with Israelis but that was not love or peace. He furthermore, shared that when his kids (5 and 7 years old) saw Jordanian soldiers talking in Arabic they were surprised because all they are used to was Israeli solders from whom they are afraid. This happens despite his efforts to teach his children that Israelis and Palestinians are equal (due to what his kids witness on a day to day basis in terms of checkpoints etc). In response Dr Pace argued that the international community had dedemocratised Palestine. She asked what notion of civil society is left in Palestine when it relies on EU money; there is a whole nation dependent on money from abroad and on top of that any critical voices and critical milieu was just suffocated. Thus, she argued against any interference. In another intervention from the floor it was argued that the whole Israeli economy was based on the conflict as well. An exchange between Dr Pace and one of the participants pointed out that working for NGOs was seen in Palestine simply as a job and all that required was for one to learn how to write proper proposals and have the necessary connections with the people in power. In her closing remarks Dr Pace said that she sees the Palestinians as a nation that gets just enough to survive but nothing more and that this was well realised in the US and the EU but no one did anything to stop it due to the strong Israeli lobby present everywhere (from the corridors of power to journal editorial boards), working 24/7. She gave the example of a discussion to bring Hamas and Fatah to Brussels, which was leaked by a member of Javier Solana s office, which subsequently brought to a standstill the whole idea. Here a participant intervened saying that in a very similar way in Israel anyone trying to express unacceptable opinions is censored because the whole Israeli economy is based on the conflict. Thus, another participant argued, there is no real democracy in Israel either. In her final remark Dr Pace 6

7 argued that the Palestinians should take things more in their own hands. Participants responded by saying that they could not do that and they furthermore would not be allowed to do such a thing. It was emphasised that with the exception of a hundred years or so Palestine has always been occupied. The session was closed by Naomi Nobel who thanked the participants and Michelle Pace for a very fruitful discussion on such an important topic. 7