Without presenting too much of a knee-jerk reaction, I would like to cite this recent gunfight in Ram Allah as the quintessential example of why Palestine, in its current state, will be incapable of democracy:
Last night, gunmen stormed a tent where the new PLO President was mourning Arafat (CNN, Aljazeera) killing two of Abbas’ bodyguards. During the skirmish the gunmen were shouting that Abbas was a “tool of America.”
Its unfortunate, but I cannot see how life in Palestine could change any time in the foreseeable future. Anyone who disagrees with a decision by the new President simply has to say, “he’s a tool of the West, he’s giving into the Zionists,” and then shoot him.
Don’t want a tax break for the middle class, don’t want medicare reform, prefer kittens over puppies, call the President a tool of the Zionists and shoot him. No matter how mundane the topic might be, there will never be a leader accepted by all of the radical militants their system has created.
The result will be a coup/assassination every 60days as defined by the PLO mandate.
The only alternative is yet another Islamic dictatorship that systemically beats down any and all opposition, again no matter how mundane. And implements a Talibanocracy, using the Koran as justification for every and all political decisions.
For now I agree that a “democracy” isn’t too viable… still if they have more chances than Iraq for example IMHO. Hamas is a problem… but most palestinians want to be “united” somehow.
Yup, Afganistan too. I just didn’t want to get blasted for painting too much of the world with the same brush…we’ll focus on Palestine for now.
And that’s just it. “Most” want X, so they vote for their dude who promises X. The “rest” who don’t want X, call dude a Zionist Puppet, shoot him, rince, repeat.
Wow. I thought President Bush was constructing a straw man when he said that " Now, there’s going to be people around who say, the Palestinians can’t develop a democracy; it’s impossible for them to live in a free society."
I’m certain that Palestinians can build a democracy. However, it will not be a liberal democracy, as in a liberal vision of human rights, strongly contrasting parties, and so on. Think more along the lines of Singapore, or maybe pre-Fox Mexico, in which one party basically ran an authoritarian-leaning government that received a mandate from the people every now and then.
I don’t think that we should be overly concerned about whether elections might be held for the PA, or Iraq, or even Afghanistan. I think the much more concerning issue, for the United States, at least, is whether the elections will be a venting of extremist views that will choose the from those who are most willing to be demagog mouthpieces for anti-Americanism.
Raveman, I have no idea what you just said. Your first paragraph seemed to imply that I was crazy and that democracy in Palestine was eminent. But then your second paragraph predicted that Palestine would end up with a one party authoritarian government that may or may not care what the people want.
Perhaps it was my fault for not properly defining democracy, but I could swear your post totally agreed with my premise: Palestine will be unable to achieve democracy (elected officials running in a multi-party system), and instead it will be reduced to an authoritarian system that uses Islam and anti-Zionism/Americanism to destroy opposition.
A representative democracy requires a particular mindset in its leaders and its people – one that recognizes the value of dissent and the limits to which it and its suppression must be held, one that distinguishes between patriotism and loyalty to the incumbent government.
Much of the world does not have that mindset. That is unfortunate, and overcomeable, but a fact of existence.
While a one-party-domination state can coexist with a free society which it governs, the temptation to turn authoritarian is high. But the examples that Ravenman points out, and the “strongman” governments historically common in various parts of Latin America, indicate that there are variations from the parliamentary and American systems that can work for some cultures. Their idea of freedom and of feedback from the governed is lacking from our perspective, but they work within the limits they have set themselves.
A resort to violence to achieve political ends, as in the incident emacknight describes, suggests that not even this may be possible for Palestine. But I’d suggest a cautious hope that they will achieve some sort of modus vivendi within which to function.
This is just like when the mafia boss dies, and all the underlings start killing each other to take his place. Israel will probably let 'em duke it out for a while then make a token gesture… but I don’t think we’ll see another Palestinian leader come out of it for a while.
Polycarp said it pretty well, but I’ll illustrate further.
What we in the West usually think of as a democracy is probably better defined as a “liberal democracy.” People of differing minds creating differing political parties, people generally think that debate, dissent, and protest help form better policies and are a strength of the system, and there is a strong emphasis on individual rights.
There are also a small number of “illiberal democracies.” In contrast, disputes are generally contained within one strong party, and others are marginalized through political, but not violent, means (like gerrymandering, consolidation of executive power, etc) ; national unity is viewed as a greater strength than debate and dissent; and individual rights are sacrificed for the good of the nation.
In Singapore, this kind of illiberal democracy has resulted in a strong state that had a single Prime Minister for something like 35 years, and yet, was not in the strict sense a strongman, for he understood, harnessed, and reacted to public opinion.
I don’t think that your scenario – an election followed by a steady movement towards another dictatorship – is unlikely (it’s entirely possible in the short term); I just think the emergence of an illiberal democracy, especially if a Palestinian state is created, is highly likely in the long run.
Ah - I just thought of another way to describe an illiberal democracy that a lot of Dopers might grok. Imagine if Bush packs the Supreme Court with John Ashcroft-like justices, who are very keen on executive power; and Tom DeLay is successful in gerrymandering more and more districts to become safe Republican seats; and that a majority of Americans think that it’s more important to show national unity during a time of war so we create a “Republican-Democratic” party so that we all can come together, to the exclusion of parties like the Greens and the Libertarians; but we maintain our Constitution unchanged. Then we’d be well on our way to illiberal democracy.
Hell, I’m unsure that the Palestinians are capable of a stable government of ANY kind in the short term, let alone ‘Democracy’ (reguardless of how you define it). I hope I’m proved wrong, but I think a civil war is brewing there as various factions struggle for control…and my fear is, the militant factions who WANT to fighting to continue with Israel are the natural winners of any kind of armed struggle.
In the former, legitimacy is derived from the consent of the governed through an orderly constitutional process. In the latter, legitimacy is conferred from the power exercised by the government.
I’d just like to agree with the summation of the Singaporean situation - it’s one of the most accurate I’ve seen so far.
You have to be a bit careful regarding the mandate, though. Some people claim that opposition governed Constituencies (um, “states”. No real power, though. Not federal) get less funding from the central government, and there is the general feeling that the opposition is repressed, and does not have the power to speak out in public against the govt. The govt doesn’t say much about the opposition either, so I guess it’s fair either way.
Point being, the people are happy that way. Opposition views can be heard in Parliament (um, the legislative), though a system of nominiated opposition members of Parliament, and the people can always vote for the opposition. Only 3 out of 21 constituencies voted opposition in the last general election, though.
That said, I don’t think that would work in the Palestinian situation. You need voters to be happy in order for this sort of scheme to work, and if there’s anything the Palestinians don’t lack, it’s unhappiness. A “illiberal democracy”, as you put it, would have to resort to violent means to maintain a majority, which would probably precipitate a general revolt. Singaporeans vote for the incumbents (PAP) because they are happy. They earn enough, they enjoy what they have, and they don’t really care for more. No racial tensions, no poverty, no unemployment, cheap healthcare, amply luxuries - if you don’t mind the relative lack of freedom (not that the locals care), it’s a pretty good living.
It’s also worth nothing the Singapore has pretty strict gun laws, as in “Armed robbery = death (yours)” kind of strict. No arms = no way a whacko can somehow get hold of weapons and cause a terrorist kind of disruption to get the people against the government. I should think even if the Palestinians stabilised enough to the point where they would accept an illiberal democracy, some anti-zionist “muslim” crackpot zealot would bomb city hall and cause popular uprising out of fear, or polarise the country enough to derail any hopes of a consistent majority for the government. No guaranteed majority = fractional democracy = all hell breaks loose.
Fix the security issue first, then think about representative government.
But that’s just it, how can you fix the security issues without causing a security issue? Is there a way to break out of this cycle? I can’t imagine any scenario in which Abbas (assuming he lives for another 60days) is able to pass legislation to “fix the security issue” without further inflaming the extremists.
Imagine trying to restrict gun ownership, or bomb making supplies, or militant training camps. What we see as “security flaws” they see as “fighting the Zionist entity.” But its those features, which have been honed for the past 39 years, that will ultimately prevent anything political stablity.