Issue No. 595
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
18 - 24 July 2002 Issue No. 595 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
The same mistakes
Washington must learn from its Cold War errors if it really wants the emergence of a democratic Palestinian state, writes Mohamed El-Sayed Said*
President Bush conditioned America's recognition of a Palestinian state on the establishment of an accountable and democratic regime in the occupied territories. In practice Palestinians fear this is an excuse to deny them justice for the few extra years it will take for the occupied territories to be totally overtaken by Israeli settlements.
Democracy, whatever its merits, is not a central issue, for what is really at stake in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is national liberation and equality. Democracy would be at the core of any solution to the conflict only if that solution were to be based on a single state for both Arabs and Jews. This is what happened in South Africa, where the conflict was resolved as a constitutional rather than national issue.
The solution conceived by President Bush is based on two states: the only excuse for the conditionality he has imposed, within this framework, would be the well intentioned but intellectually blurred assumption that Palestinian democracy is essential for peace making between Palestinians and Israelis. There is no logical or empirical proof, though, for such an assumption.
Bush's conditionality has as its intellectual props the attempts by political scientists to prove that democracies don't go to war. Most wars are said to be waged by authoritarian regimes, or between democracies and authoritarian regimes.
The underlying hypothesis -- an example of empirical research utterly losing conceptual clarity and vigour -- is that authoritarian regimes are intrinsically aggressive. That democracies more often than not launched colonial wars, normally against traditional societies that were by definition undemocratic, is conveniently ignored. Follow the logic of the hypothesis, and instead of condemning empire-builders who just happened to have ruled some Western democracies, traditional societies would be condemned for resisting colonial conquests. The Zulus, for instance, should have smiled at the advancing British troops instead of fighting them in a terrible and tragic sacrificial war in 1904.
In abstract terms, the two phenomena -- war and despotism -- have relatively independent social and structural roots. The relationship also holds in a direct sense, as well. Colonial wars halted the process of early democratisation in a number of Arab countries: in the late 19th century Middle East democratisation was clearly viewed as a factor in avoiding colonisation. Khedive Ismail had to establish a consultative council on the basis of elections in 1867 in an attempt to avoid the threat of European conquest. The constitutional party took the argument much farther, diagnosing the problem of the orient as being rooted in despotism. The Orabi Revolution of 1881 produced one of the earliest constitutions in the world. Later, the nationalist struggle drifted away from the ideals of democracy only when peaceful struggle organised by the majority liberal democratic (Al-Wafd) party (ies) failed to bring about independence in the face of British obstinacy.
As a general rule it was the failure of liberal democratic parties to achieve independence that allowed room for the growth of non-democratic forces, a fact that remains fundamental to all debates on the presumed relationship between peace and democracy in Palestine.
If the US is truly interested in establishing a functioning democracy for Palestinians one thing is clear, it must avoid its own past mistakes. For a significant period after the beginning of the Cold War the United States failed to support struggles for independence in the colonial world because of fears it might weaken the ranks of Western democracies confronting the Soviet regime. The United States, in effect, was asking the colonised to support the West, the occupier, against the Soviets. The US abandoned this approach only after the damage was done and ultra-nationalist or totalitarian forces had tightened their grips on the hearts and minds of the populace.
Now the US is committing the same mistake. It is supporting a harsh colonial regime in the West Bank and Gaza because it fears that an independent state will be despotic and corrupt. Yet it is the obstruction of independence and of justice that allows such a large space for despotism and lack of transparency. The Palestinian people, like other peoples of the world, need democracy. But if the democratic West remains so indifferent to their long tragedy the popular mind will inevitably come to conclude that Western democracy is also to blame. Worse still, by singling out Arafat for removal, the US appears bent on removing the only nationalist leader capable of bargaining towards a viable two-state solution, and then leading the Palestinians towards a liberalised system of government rather than to civil war.
* The writer is deputy director of Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| 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 |
