Over at Power Line, Paul Mirengoff notes the “reconciliation” talks between Fatah and Hamas have broken down.
According to Salah Bardaweel, a Hamas negotiator and legislator, the reconciliation talks broke down because Fatah took the position that there would be no unity government unless Hamas accepted all previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians and recognized Israel’s right to exist. Hamas considered this demand outrageous on its face, to the point that Bardaweel accused Fatah of intentionally “foiling the talks” by asserting it. “They set impossible conditions,” he charged.
Many, especially on the right, no doubt see this as a chance to heap some fairly well-deserved scorn on the Palestinians and their ridiculously exaggerated animus toward Israel, which has arguably treated them no worse than other countries in the region (and perhaps better than some). But there’s something else going on here too, with a parallel to what’s been happening in Iraq.
When Iraq first held elections in 2005, it was a great and historic milestone, but as many skeptics of the effort there noted at the time, it was almost more of an ethnosectarian census than an election, as few other bonds had survived the brutal one-party police state rule of the Baathists, which permitted no political competition. Those elected had not been judged on the effectiveness of their policies or their persons so much as anointed to represent their sect or ethnicity. The next couple of years saw a national government ranging from ineffectual to irrelevant, as power had devolved to the Sunni extremists and Shia militarists, who continued to fight a very nasty and bloody war in the streets. In 2006, PM Ibrahim al-Jaafari (remember him?) was forced from power and a man who could get things done, one Nouri Al-Maliki, was agreed upon as his replacement, a move that today seems prescient if not divinely inspired. Maliki’s efforts to restore security (aided in no small part by the surge) were successful enough that he was rewarded with a dominating victory in the provincial elections for the new Maliki-founded secular nationalist party State of Law, and the party seems well-positioned to follow up with more gains in the December national elections.
The Palestinians also recently held historic first elections, and while parties didn’t break down along ethnosectarian lines they were similarly ill-equipped to govern, leading to a state many called civil war. Fatah was thrown out of power largely due to corruption, but Hamas’ election has been a disaster as their policies made Palestine an international pariah unable even to receive most aid. It remains to be seen whether further elections will allow the Palestinians to pursue peace and security as Iraqis have, but the example of Iraq suggests it is likely.
{ 10 comments }
Democracy is the best form of government, but without constitutional guarantees of minority rights and institutions to enforce those guarantees, Democracy is just the dictatorship of the majority.
Nation building usually involves creating the institutions to enforce constitutional guarantees of minority rights first, then holding elections. In both Iraq and Palestine elections were held first, without creating the institutions. Iraq has a reasonable constitution with guarantees of minority rights, but it has lacked the institutions to enforce those rights. I am not familiar with the Palestine constitution.
Holding elections first and then hoping for the elected government to create the institutions required is a chaotic process, as we have seen in Iraq and Palestine. We can hope that eventually, the institutions will be created. There has been significant progress in Iraq in the last year, but there is a long way yet to go. Palestine seems to just get worse.
Democracy gives you Hamas in Gaza. I think we need to stop maing assertions like “Democracy is the best form of government” because it isn’t a form of government; its a tool used in the (partial) creation of governments. Democracies can suspend habeus corpus, or throw citizens into Gitmo without trial, or make signing statements, or support a line0-item veto eventhough these tings might all be outlawed in the constitution of the state which supposedly prevents them.
the first paragraph might just as well read,
Monarchy is the best form of government, but without constitutional guarantees of minority rights and institutions to enforce those guarantees, Monarchy is just the dictatorship of the minority.
Democracy is just the best way to choose leaders to draft and implement the laws of a republic. No one advocates it as a form of gov’t.
Nation building usually involves creating the institutions to enforce constitutional guarantees of minority rights first
Ideally. So, how’s that going? In the meantime, some measure of freedom and accountability is better than none.
Electing Hamas in Gaza may be a necessary step towards eventual peace in the Middle East. Now Palestinian voters have learned what life under Hamas is like. Their next election will be more informed.
Free elections are not a panacea, they are merely much better than the lack of free elections.
Free elections do not guarantee the best candidates will win, they merely make the election of better candidates possible.
mikeca,
Is democracy really the best form of government? Didn’t our Founders believe that democracy was mob-rule and that a constitutional republic was better?
Great comments on Democracy. But it’s not only a tool. I think Perez said it best when he said “Democracy is not a matter of elections; it is a civilization” meaning that you can’t just use the tool of elections and then throw it away; the people elected have to be mindful, or be kept mindful, of their responsibility to the electorate. That takes things called “democratic institutions” like a free media, free speech, etc.
Of course Erdoğan had a temper tantrum that would make a 5-year-old ashamed of.
To contradict Mikeca, in most cases you get minority rights quicker when you have democracy. Indeed, the entire last century has shown repeatedly that the more a country democratizes, the more rapidly human rights, including minority rights, develop, and the more democratic the nation the more rigorously these rights are upheld.
Are there exceptions? Yes but not as many as people assume. Are democracies always perfect at that? No, no one said they were. But if you can find me the system which protects minority rights and general human rights better than your average democracy, I’d be impressed.
To contradict Aziz: A country is not a democracy if it holds elections. Elections are a rudimentary element to democracy, just like steel is a rudimentary element to automobiles. You can’t hand someone 2 tons of steel, rubber, and glass and say “there you go, enjoy your car!”
It is not uncommon for a country to be run as a dictatorship or similar authoritarian system to have an election now and then, even an election recognized as more or less legitimate (i.e. no cheating, ballot-stuffing, ballot-destroying, etc.) but still not be a democracy. Palestine is not a democracy. Neither are Iraq or Afghanistan. All three, on the other hand, are taking shaky first steps in that direction. In most countries, becoming a democracy will take years. Because beyond elections, you need a lot of other things.
However, experience has shown repeatedly that when you allow an autocracy to say that it needs to keep running things because the country is “not yet ready” for democracy, what you’re really saying is that the autocrats get to decide when, where, and how the people are allowed to have their voice. I think experience shows pretty clearly what the usual result of that is: the autocrats never really give up power, and democracy rarely actually happens.
Elections are one of the crucial elements of developing a democracy. They need to be there, and the earlier in the process that they’re there, the better. Elections gave us Hamas as a political party. This makes elections bad? I’d say no, it means you respect the results of the elections, and then see if Hamas will allow free elections again in the future and how they respond to losing power.
There are a number of countries in Europe where political parties once directly and strongly associated with fascists and communists are now respectable, non-violent political parties that respect the results of elections. Including places like Italy and Spain. History suggests that violent extremist parties that start taking part in elections in a developing democracy usually either disappear or morph into non-violent parties that are simply part of the system. Or, they take over the mechanisms of a developing democracy and cripple or destroy them–fascists did a lot of that, as did many communists.
As for this bit:
Democracies can suspend habeus corpus, or throw citizens into Gitmo without trial, or make signing statements, or support a line0-item veto eventhough these tings might all be outlawed in the constitution of the state which supposedly prevents them.
Not only can they do so, but I would be surprised if there were any democracy bigger than, oh, Lichtenstein, which hasn’t done all of the above. Democracies just do these things much more rarely and in much more constrained fashion than any other system of government bothers itself with. The only time autocracies respect such things is as a result of outside pressures–and it usually takes quite a lot of that in even small cases.
To contradict Kevin: Today, examples of Constitutional Republics which are not democracies are rare these days. Iran is the only example I can think of off the top of my head.
The problem here is with the logic that says “Constitutional Republic” and “Democracy” are mutually exclusive. The Founders, over 225 years ago, tended to think so, but they were working in an era where democracy was extremely rare. They also witnessed the horrors of the French Revolution, which really was a horrifying example of murderous, barbaric mob rule. So they tended to go out of their way to emphasize that they did not support mob rule.
Well I don’t support mob rule either, and I am most definitely a democrat (small “D”). Nevertheless, the United States of America is a Constitutional Republic that has most definitely been a thriving, growing, and prosperous democracy for a century or so by most definitions as used in political science (and in most dictionaries of the English language; check if you don’t believe me).
Even Iran holds the pretense of elections, a sort of abortive gesture to the moral virtue of democracy.
Dean,
I asked two questions. Don’t know how one contradicts a question… an un-question? Is that like an un-birthday?
Very merry un-birthday to you!
Comments on this entry are closed.