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.

A Palestinian state is slowly being born. It will not necessarily look like other states. It will probably not be fully independent. And it will only emerge after a carefully controlled transitional period. Nevertheless, the process of state formation has begun, and the Gaza-Jericho agreement is the first step.

Among the many unanswered questions about this state in the making is whether or not it will be democratic. Israelis have shown little interest in this crucial issue. This is a strange posture for citizens of a democracy to adopt, but it stems from Israel?s primary concern with its own security and widespread skepticism among Israelis about the possibility of democracy anywhere in the Arab world. Moreover, Israeli leaders have found certain advantages in negotiating with Arab dictators, who are not accountable to the vagaries of public opinion. Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat probably would not have made his famous journey to Jerusalem in November 1977 if he had been forced to consult the Egyptian public. Negotiations with Syria?s Hafez al-Assad or Jordan?s King Hussein would not be any easier if democratic governments reigned in either country. In short, few Israelis have concluded that more democracy would cure the confusion that often seems to govern Palestinian politics.

THE CASE FOR DEMOCRACY

Among Palestinians, however, interest in democracy is growing. According to some polls, about three-fourths of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza favor holding elections for a governing authority during the interim period, while only ten percent want the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to appoint the government.

Palestinians care about democracy for several reasons. To put it bluntly, they have had bad experiences with authoritarian Arab regimes. Whether one thinks of Nasser?s Egypt, Assad?s Syria or Saddam?s Iraq, Palestinians have numerous stories of their mistreatment by arbitrary, nondemocratic governments. These memories predispose many Palestinians to think that their own government should avoid the pitfalls of one-man rule.

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have also been influenced by the political life of their closest neighbors, Israel and Jordan. As much as they may abhor Israeli occupation policies, they have seen what a free press can do, witnessed a working parliamentary system, and seen mobilized electorates oust governments that failed to deliver on promises. Palestinians who are citizens of Israel regularly run for election to municipal offices and the Knesset, where they hold several seats. These experiences have been noted by their disenfranchised cousins in the West Bank and Gaza.

In Jordan, Palestinians have seen the flowering of an impressive democratic experiment. Jordanian parliamentary elections have been relatively free, the press debates a wide range of issues, and the king, while retaining immense powers, has ruled in recent years with a comparatively light touch. A surprising number of Palestinians who used to be harsh critics of the Hashemites are now favorably comparing Jordan?s emerging political norms with the political chaos that seems to characterize the PLO.

Finally, many Palestinians have been forced to live abroad, often in Western countries, where they have become used to democratic ways. Palestinians educated in the West are often harsh critics of Western policies, but they admire many aspects of democratic political culture.

But it is not just the experiences of others that Palestinians can look to for models of pluralistic politics. Their own nationalist movement, for all its shortcomings, has nonetheless been comparatively tolerant. The PLO has always been an umbrella movement embracing a number of different tendencies, each of which has had some representation in the official bodies of the PLO. Decisions have often involved lengthy debate and compromise, and voting has been a normal part of Palestinian decision-making.

No one would claim that the PLO has been perfectly democratic, but it has been less authoritarian than many nationalist movements. Even within the core Fatah movement, there was a high degree of collective involvement in decisions until recently. After the Israeli assassination of Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad) and the killing of Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyad) by an Abu Nidal terrorist, PLO leader Yasir Arafat became increasingly prone to one-man rule, but previously he had been obliged to listen to the views of the movement?s cofounders.