Giving Democracy A Bad Name

GEARING up for a new Palestinian leadership, the United States has conveyed its strong support for elections within 60 days of Yasser Arafat's death.

The elections, which are called for under Palestinian law, are viewed within the administration as a way of ensuring a legitimate transfer of authority to new leaders with the hope they would take charge of maintaining order and nurturing a nascent Palestinian government.

-- US Supports Palestinian Election; Victoria Herald Sun, 11 Nov 04

So the U.S., in the form of Secretary Powell, is urging the Palestinians to hold elections.  How very democratic of him. And how very belated.  Would it be bad form here to point out that it is the U.S. Administration in general - and Secretary Powell in particular - that have played a leading role over the last two years in denying the Palestinians the right to hold a general election, out of fear that it wouldn't produce the compliant leadership the U.S. intends for the Palestinian Authority?

Remember that in response to Bush's Rose Garden speech of June 2002, in which he called for the election of a new leadership "not tainted by terror", the PA called President Bush's bluff and scheduled elections for 20 January 2003. But with Arafat riding high in Palestinians public opinion polls after the Muqata siege in fall 2002, it quickly became obvious that if the elections were held, Arafat would be re-elected.  And President Bush's new-found commitment to Palestinian democracy died a sudden death.  Because let's be honest, this Administration's commitment to bringing "democracy" to the Middle East does not really envisage democracies that vote for anyone other than our preferred candidate. All of which explains why there was a resounding silence from the US when the PA asked for pressure on Israel to allow voter registration to take place in the reoccupied Palestinian cities.  Ha'aretz ran a series of articles discussing openly how there was no chance that the Palestinians were going to be allowed to organize elections, if there was any danger that Arafat would get a new mandate, e.g.:

The real reason why the Israeli authorities, with the support of the United States, will not permit Palestinian elections is that they do not want Arafat to be reelected....So the PA can go on making all the preparations and its senior officials can talk as much as they wish about democratic processes and procedures, but as long as it's clear that Arafat will win, elections are not likely to take place.

-- Danny Rubinstein, The Other Elections;  (Ha'aretz, 16 Nov 2002).

That was what killed off the 2003 Palestinian elections.

Earlier this year, the Qureia government tried again, by launching a push for elections in January 2005, as part of a three-pronged "peaceful intifada":

The Palestinian leadership has announced a three-point programme of non-violent resistance in an attempt to wrest the diplomatic initiative from Israel. They hope to push Israel into allowing elections, to lead mass protests against the separation barrier and the maltreatment of prisoners, and to challenge Israel in the international courts.

-- Palestinians' triple strategy: polls, demonstrations and court cases, The Guardian.

The members of Qureia's government recognized that in Arafat they had a President that the Bush Administration would not recognize, and who could be a real pain in the ass to work with. But they also knew that he was the symbol of Palestinian nationhood, and was the key to selling a negotiated two-state solution - without a Right of Return - to the Palestinian people.  So Qureia’s government was resigned to Arafat, but trying to work around him, and elections were their preferred way of doing it.  They knew that Arafat would win a Presidential vote, but believed that local and parliamentary elections would sweep new blood into office with a mandate and a legitimacy to take on the tough security decisions that Arafat evaded.

Voter registration for the proposed 2005 elections has just finished, and a very respectable 67-75% of eligible voters have registered.  Except in East Jerusalem, where voter intimidation by the Israeli authorities forced a halt to registration.  That didn't get much news coverage here, but BBC News noted the irony of the situation:

Two years ago the US President George W Bush famously called on the Palestinians to elect a new and different leadership. It was part of his vision of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. The Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says there won't be movement in the peace process without a reformed Palestinian Authority.

Palestinians have responded by beginning to organise their first national elections in seven years. But when it comes to Palestinian democracy in occupied East Jerusalem, Israel is obstructing them, and the Americans have little to say.   

-- Early Troubles For Palestinian Voter Registration; BBC News, 21 Sept 2004.

Qureia dispatched Negotiations Minister Saeb Erekat to the State Dept this summer to plead for US support for Palestinian elections, but - in a move that was interpreted as a diplomatic victory for Israel – the same Secretary Powell made it very clear that the US isn't interested in the Palestinians' voting unless it produces Israel’s (and hence the U.S.’) preferred outcome:

WASHINGTON -- In another diplomatic victory for Israel's government, the Bush administration is turning a cold shoulder to a Palestinian initiative that would schedule general elections in the West Bank and Gaza as soon as January 2005.

The Palestinians are touting the idea as a tool to produce a new, reformed leadership, but the administration has indicated that it agrees with an Israeli contention that the early date would be the wrong timing for Palestinian general elections, according to Israeli diplomats and pro-Israel activists.

The administration rejected the initiative because of the concern that elections would reproduce and thus reaffirm the existing leadership, headed by Yasser Arafat…

-- White House Cool to Palestinian Proposal To Hold General Election, Forward (registration required), 2 July 2004.

And now, just four months later, with Arafat departed and the U.S.-approved Abu Mazen set to take his place at the head of the PLO, Secretary Powell is suddenly pushing for elections as if it is the nefarious Palestinians that have been blocking them all along!

The U.S. refusal to countenance Palestinian elections unless they produce a ruler we like is symptomatic of a bigger problem in our Middle East policy in general, which is the absolute bankruptcy of the Bush Administration's much-vaunted claim to be bringing democracy to the region.  Given a free choice, the people of the Middle East are not going to choose the CIA-backed pro-US Emirs, Kings and unelected Presidents that currently rule over them, so democracy is absolutely not on the cards and never was.  (Remember Rumsfeld's comment two days after the invasion of Iraq that a Shiite-led Islamic government was "not going to happen"?  Well, that's a pretty odd thing to say with confidence if you really plan to give a democratic voice to a country that is 2/3 Shiite and where the most respected community leaders are Ayatollahs, isn't it?). 

Our policy towards the Middle East is basically built on the lie that we care about democracy when really we care about installing compliant Arab governments who will keep their populace in line, tone down the rhetoric against Israel and, where applicable, keep the oil flowing at a price Americans can live with.  We need to find a new name for the regional order we are currently installing at the point of a gun in the Arab world, because whatever it is, it isn’t “democracy”.

Remember that in response to Bush's Rose Garden speech of June 2002, in which he called for the election of a new leadership "not tainted by terror", the PA called President Bush's bluff and scheduled elections for 20 January 2003. But with Arafat riding high in Palestinians public opinion polls after the Muqata siege in fall 2002, it quickly became obvious that if the elections were held, Arafat would be re-elected.  And President Bush's new-found commitment to Palestinian democracy died a sudden death.  Because let's be honest, this Administration's commitment to bringing "democracy" to the Middle East does not really envisage democracies that vote for anyone other than our preferred candidate. All of which explains why there was a resounding silence from the US when the PA asked for pressure on Israel to allow voter registration to take place in the reoccupied Palestinian cities.  Ha'aretz ran a series of articles discussing openly how there was no chance that the Palestinians were going to be allowed to organize elections, if there was any danger that Arafat would get a new mandate, e.g.:

The real reason why the Israeli authorities, with the support of the United States, will not permit Palestinian elections is that they do not want Arafat to be reelected....So the PA can go on making all the preparations and its senior officials can talk as much as they wish about democratic processes and procedures, but as long as it's clear that Arafat will win, elections are not likely to take place.

-- Danny Rubinstein, The Other Elections;  (Ha'aretz, 16 Nov 2002).

That was what killed off the 2003 Palestinian elections.

Earlier this year, the Qureia government tried again, by launching a push for elections in January 2005, as part of a three-pronged "peaceful intifada":

The Palestinian leadership has announced a three-point programme of non-violent resistance in an attempt to wrest the diplomatic initiative from Israel. They hope to push Israel into allowing elections, to lead mass protests against the separation barrier and the maltreatment of prisoners, and to challenge Israel in the international courts.

-- Palestinians' triple strategy: polls, demonstrations and court cases, The Guardian.

The members of Qureia's government recognized that in Arafat they had a President that the Bush Administration would not recognize, and who could be a real pain in the ass to work with. But they also knew that he was the symbol of Palestinian nationhood, and was the key to selling a negotiated two-state solution - without a Right of Return - to the Palestinian people.  So Qureia’s government was resigned to Arafat, but trying to work around him, and elections were their preferred way of doing it.  They knew that Arafat would win a Presidential vote, but believed that local and parliamentary elections would sweep new blood into office with a mandate and a legitimacy to take on the tough security decisions that Arafat evaded.

Voter registration for the proposed 2005 elections has just finished, and a very respectable 67-75% of eligible voters have registered.  Except in East Jerusalem, where voter intimidation by the Israeli authorities forced a halt to registration.  That didn't get much news coverage here, but BBC News noted the irony of the situation:

Two years ago the US President George W Bush famously called on the Palestinians to elect a new and different leadership. It was part of his vision of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. The Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says there won't be movement in the peace process without a reformed Palestinian Authority.

Palestinians have responded by beginning to organise their first national elections in seven years. But when it comes to Palestinian democracy in occupied East Jerusalem, Israel is obstructing them, and the Americans have little to say.   

-- Early Troubles For Palestinian Voter Registration; BBC News, 21 Sept 2004.

Qureia dispatched Negotiations Minister Saeb Erekat to the State Dept this summer to plead for US support for Palestinian elections, but - in a move that was interpreted as a diplomatic victory for Israel – the same Secretary Powell made it very clear that the US isn't interested in the Palestinians' voting unless it produces Israel’s (and hence the U.S.’) preferred outcome:

WASHINGTON -- In another diplomatic victory for Israel's government, the Bush administration is turning a cold shoulder to a Palestinian initiative that would schedule general elections in the West Bank and Gaza as soon as January 2005.

The Palestinians are touting the idea as a tool to produce a new, reformed leadership, but the administration has indicated that it agrees with an Israeli contention that the early date would be the wrong timing for Palestinian general elections, according to Israeli diplomats and pro-Israel activists.

The administration rejected the initiative because of the concern that elections would reproduce and thus reaffirm the existing leadership, headed by Yasser Arafat…

-- White House Cool to Palestinian Proposal To Hold General Election, Forward (registration required), 2 July 2004.

And now, just four months later, with Arafat departed and the U.S.-approved Abu Mazen set to take his place at the head of the PLO, Secretary Powell is suddenly pushing for elections as if it is the nefarious Palestinians that have been blocking them all along!

The U.S. refusal to countenance Palestinian elections unless they produce a ruler we like is symptomatic of a bigger problem in our Middle East policy in general, which is the absolute bankruptcy of the Bush Administration's much-vaunted claim to be bringing democracy to the region.  Given a free choice, the people of the Middle East are not going to choose the CIA-backed pro-US Emirs, Kings and unelected Presidents that currently rule over them, so democracy is absolutely not on the cards and never was.  (Remember Rumsfeld's comment two days after the invasion of Iraq that a Shiite-led Islamic government was "not going to happen"?  Well, that's a pretty odd thing to say with confidence if you really plan to give a democratic voice to a country that is 2/3 Shiite and where the most respected community leaders are Ayatollahs, isn't it?). 

Our policy towards the Middle East is basically built on the lie that we care about democracy when really we care about installing compliant Arab governments who will keep their populace in line, tone down the rhetoric against Israel and, where applicable, keep the oil flowing at a price Americans can live with.  We need to find a new name for the regional order we are currently installing at the point of a gun in the Arab world, because whatever it is, it isn’t “democracy”.