15 - 21 November 2001
Issue No.560
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 15 - 21 November 2001 Issue No.560 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Crises of legitimacy
To stop suicide bombers, let people vote, suggests George Giacaman*
The assassination of the Israeli tourism minister produced repercussions in Israel and affected the stances of the United States, the European Union and Arab countries, but also triggered public debate in Palestine over the foreign policy -- or policies -- the Palestinians should adopt.
This matter was subject to debate even before 11 September, because it is connected to acts carried out within Israel, particularly those involving the killing of civilians. For Palestinians, the assassination of Israelis was simply retaliation -- the implementation of the "eye for an eye" policy.
The question raised after Ze'evi's murder, however, was a little more specific: are several entities formulating policies from within Palestine? In other words, are several factions implementing more than one Palestinian policy in the conflict with Israel? This relates to Israel's recent military reoccupation of areas under Palestinian rule, of course; but, more importantly, it also relates to Palestinian efforts, since 11 September, to make the most of the changing global and regional situation, and use the attack's political repercussions on US and European policy in a bid to achieve political gains on the Palestinian-Israeli front.
Israel, the United States, and some European and Arab states are putting growing pressure on the PA, urging "stiffer control" on the home front and "accountability" in compliance with its mandate as "the Authority for all Palestinians." The core issues here are "unified representation," "legitimate representation" and the PA's political decision-making function. It seems absurd that external pressures have instigated a moment of truth for the PA and the opposition alike, when such a watershed could have emerged as a response to post-Oslo domestic Palestinian political needs. The foreign policy issue has returned to the table again and again over the years, but never induced more than minimal change in the system.
Today, a Palestinian government conducts the affairs of its people on its land, and aspires to establish a free, independent and sovereign state. It is incongruous, then, for more than one Palestinian "foreign policy" to exist, especially if one of these policies legitimises the assassination of civilians within Israel, or other acts of murder, even if their timing harms the PA's status or the political situation for Palestinians in general. On the other hand, "unity of representation" for the Palestinians suggests participation in the decision-making process, which is hardly current practice on the Palestinian political scene. People cannot be expected to commit to decisions they have not helped forge, or to suffer the consequences of these decisions. This is not only true of their specific case; it is a generally accepted principle. The present crisis, therefore, brought into sharp focus the flagrant violations of this rule as applied to the Palestinians.
Such basic issues, however, are disregarded. Yet criticism of the PA's lack of genuine interest in admitting other parties to the decision- making process is well founded. This reluctance is evident in the failure of several dialogues conducted during recent months to form a "national unity government" or an "emergency interim government." The PA has also dragged its heels on municipal elections; then, of course, there is the case of the Legislative Assembly, which had overstayed its term even before the Intifada began.
Still, it is not clear that lack of genuine interest alone is the reason for this procrastination. The PA and the opposition seem to have reached an implicit agreement that there was no real need to share decision-making. For example, do the factions, parties and movements outside the government wish to participate in the negotiations conducted with Israel under the auspices of the United Nations or even Europe?
Claims that Oslo is dead are inaccurate, because Oslo resulted from a specific balance of power that prevailed on the ground at the time. The events of 11 September have brought into global focus once again the need to find a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and thereby effect a breakthrough in the political stalemate that has grown ever more ponderous since the second Camp David talks. Negotiations, however, are still the mechanism for follow- up, and the international community must encourage and nurture them.
The lack of initiative, shared by the PA and the opposition, in shifting from mechanisms that ensured political legitimacy under the PLO to mechanisms allowing for political legitimacy in a state under establishment: this is the major problem in the Palestinian political system, and the principal source of uncertainty. Resistance and armed struggle have earned legitimacy for factions operating from within the PLO and legitimate representation for resistance movements outside it. A government that manages the affairs of a people on its own soil and seeks to establish a state that will be recognised, on the other hand, cannot evade its accountability for armed operations emerging from within its borders.
The current crisis in the Palestinian political system lies in the separation of three inseparable elements, which must be integrated in the new body politic: armed struggle; new foundations for political legitimacy, to be built by the opposition's contribution to the new political system through elections; consequently, participation in decision-making. Such a process would also require considerable effort to change the PA's attitude toward the idea of shared decision- making. Without such effort, the PA may well adopt more authoritarian methods in obtaining the opposition's compliance while denying it any involvement in the political system. In the haze of the present conflict, it seems at times that we are faced by a new division of roles, whereby the PA and the opposition are at once within and outside the realm of accountability.
While external pressures on the PA make it seem impossible to pursue such policies further today, the crisis purports to the separation of the three inseparable elements stated above.
To be legitimate, unified decision- making must be based on legitimate representation. This, in turn, is linked to the acquisition of legitimacy by means other than armed struggle. Armed struggle, however, is built on unified decision-making and shared accountability; and it exists because a people, in its own land, is deprived arbitrarily of its right to participate in decision- making through the election of its representatives. Elections are therefore the way to legitimacy. This is the core of the crisis in the Palestinian political system today.
*The writer is a professor at Birzeit University.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page