The Urge for Democracy

William B. Quandt

From Foreign Affairs, July/August 1994

Summary:  Despite the obstacles, the unwillingness of the PLO to let go, and Western and Israeli indifference, a democratic Palestinian state is both desirable and possible.

William B. Quandt is a Senior Fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution.

Democracy is not a panacea for the problems that confront the Palestinians. It will not ensure that good leaders are chosen. But it can help avert the problems of chronically bad government, a widespread phenomenon in the Middle East. The root assumption of democracy, after all, is that people do know when they are being badly ruled and will, given the chance, use the ballot to get rid of corrupt and ineffective leaders. This is why elections matter in an institutionalized democracy. If officials know that they must periodically submit to an election, chances are they will govern with some notion of the public interest in mind. Thus, dictatorship and incompetence will eventually result in public alienation and, if free elections are held, new leaders.

In the case of Algeria, where elections in December 1991 nearly brought the militant Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) to power in early 1992, the argument against military intervention would have been convincing if the FIS had credibly promised elections within a fixed number of years. If the FIS were as bad or incompetent as its critics maintained, it would have been voted out of power. Algerian political culture might have been well served by allowing a populist opposition movement to try its hand at governing. Alternatively, the FIS might have done a reasonably good job of running the country, in which case it would deserve to be reelected. The problem was that the FIS was ambivalent about the entire concept of democracy and elections, and there was good reason to believe that the only free election ever held would be the one that brought the FIS to power.

The analogy in the Palestinian case would be that Hamas or other radical Palestinian groups might do well in elections. Hamas? democratic credentials are certainly in doubt, but so are those of all the other groups.

What seems important in the Palestinian case is to begin an electoral process that allows for widespread representation, not a winner-take-all system. One would hope that the requirements of managing the transition to independence, the interaction with the international community and pressure from grass-roots organizations would oblige Palestinians to acquire the habits of democratic self-government. After all, democratic norms take root over time as people experience the rules of democracy and see in practice why it is the least bad of all political systems. Democrats are not born; they come by their beliefs through education and practice.

Of course, any democratic experiment can be aborted. The peace process could stagnate, the Likud Party could return to power, democratization in Jordan could fail, or the economy could worsen. Any of these conditions would threaten Palestinian democracy. But they are not inevitable, and they are not reasons to avoid the experience in the first place.

DEMOCRACY AND PEACE

The United States, which has taken a hands-off attitude toward the implementation of the Israeli-PLO agreement, is in a position to lend its weight to the democrats in Palestine. To do so, it needs to use its influence with Israel, Western countries and potential donors to link future economic and diplomatic assistance to Palestinian democratization.

Moreover, the United States should take a more aggressive position promoting Palestinian democracy. At some point, perhaps, in the aftermath of Palestinian elections for a self-governing council, the Clinton administration should find a way to link future support for Palestinian statehood to further steps toward democracy and region-wide peace. For example, the administration could say that its support for eventual Palestinian statehood would be commensurate with the Palestinian commitment to democracy. This could give a substantial boost to Palestinians who aspire to independence, especially those who support the peace process and democracy.

Why should the United States adopt such a position? America has repeatedly said that it supports the development of democracy anywhere in the world, but successive administrations have been remarkably shy about pushing this notion in the Middle East. This stance has led many in the Arab world, especially opposition movements, to complain that the United States has a double standard. In the case of the Palestinians, the United States could support a principle of great importance, democratic governance, and make a contribution to the long-standing goal of Arab-Israeli peace at the same time.

A Palestinian democracy would almost certainly be a better neighbor for Jordan and Israel than a Palestinian dictatorship. A Palestinian democracy would fit more readily into arrangements for regional cooperation and development and have less need for a large armed force. Most important, any agreement it makes with Israel would have greater legitimacy in the eyes of the Palestinian people.