Following assurances and promises by US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to spread democracy in the Middle East only to see the destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, a third of the Palestinian population (those in the 1967 territories) voted against the existing Palestinian National Authority government, led by Fatah. Instead they voted in favour of what seemed then to be the only political force capable of challenging the remnants of the Oslo Accords.
They did not vote based on their own political perspectives, but rather to punish a “Third-worldish” authority characterised by: corruption; suppression of freedom; de-prioritisation of the national struggle; minimisation of the Palestinian people to the population of the West Bank and Gaza; security coordination under the oversight of a US general; the steady growth of layers of unproductive bureaucracy and comprador class; suppression of the national forces of opposition parties.
Add to this the transformation of Palestinian national aspirations, through the marginalisation of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation and the establishment of an “independent” Palestinian mini-state on a fraction of the land of historic Palestine – recognition of Israel but without asking Israel to reciprocate and recognise the rights of the Palestinian people, and thereby bestowing legitimacy on the Zionist project. This process had been unprecedented in the history of national liberation movements, including the Bantustans or ethnic enclaves alleged to be sovereign states within apartheid-era South Africa.
Palestinian Legislative Council
In order to complete this fallacy and reinforce the new reality that has emerged after 1993, they had to create new institutions reflecting the supposed equality between the two parties and sell the illusion of “independence” to the Palestinian people. Among these institutions was the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), which represents only residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
“In 2006, the Oslo virus, continued to infect even the victorious right-wing, religious political party that had won through its opposition to such agreements.”
When the first elections were held in 1996, most left-wing and Islamic forces boycotted, for reasons largely consistent with what is proposed by this article and which remain valid; namely, the impossibility of voting freely, choosing your candidate under the threatening gun of the occupier.
But the election result was known in advance: It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a political force that had consistently shown an opposition to the Oslo agreements to win a majority of seats in the new Legislative Council. Expectantly, “victory” went to the right-wing political force that had signed the accords, with some token opposition included to complete the picture.
The Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza went to the polls again, but this time in order to avoid repeating the outcome of the previous election, and to repudiate the PA and its governing party. Their defeat brought great joy that the status quo had successfully been ended. And then the problem became the religious right, who won the elections, but forgot that many of those who voted for them were not necessarily supporters of their political – or particularly ideological – programme.
In 2006, the Oslo virus, continued to infect even the victorious right-wing, religious political party that had won through its opposition to such agreements – but by disregarding the principle that participation in the elections is in itself a tacit approval of the foundations on which they were held. It was forgotten, alas, that the PLC is one of the institutions, amongst others including the PA itself, with its “ministries” and security apparatuses, that had emerged from the Oslo agreements.
But the question here relates to the most prominent link between the 2006 election and the price paid by ordinary people for its outcome. The equation has become clear: if you go to the ballot box and elect against the continuation of “dialogue” with Israel, through a US-brokered process, you will face a crippling blockade, accompanied by a brutal genocidal war, with the finger of blame pointed at you.
The 2006 election, however, has spawned another, albeit unwanted, authority, entrenched in the Gaza Strip and playing the role of prison sergeant, or chief of prisoners, regulating the lives of 1.6 million prisoners. Many attempts were made by the new winners of the elections to appease the US through messages reassuring President Obama, and emphasising, more than once, from the lips of the most prominent leaders, their willingness to accept an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 border, without recognition of Israel!
Notwithstanding the obvious fact that this is an acceptance of a racist proposal originally made by the Zionist left, one that ignores the fact that the vast majority of the Palestinian people are in the Diaspora and 1948 territories. This Osloised pragmatism has been accompanied by the application of strict religious laws, without formally legalising them, reflecting the new rulers’ ideological background, but under the claim that they sought “the protection of customs and traditions”.
Day by day, we have seen this authority shift from a stage of resistance to the siege, to co-existing with it, and finally reaching a stage of taking advantage of it! It has created a new, unproductive rentier class, whose capital is based on trade in the tunnels (essentially the only lifeline for the people of the Gaza Strip), land trading, a monopoly on the marketing of building materials, etc. This went hand in hand with a monopoly on the definition of resistance, excluding the possibility of reconciliation with those who do not follow its ideology.
The time of revolutions
Today, as part of the falsely constructed binary between these two authorities, comes the call to register at polling stations and to prepare for new PLC elections as part of a new reconciliation agreement (again!) between them. The choice again is between the religious right and the secular right, with a third, necessary alternative absent.
What is the desired outcome of these elections? And are they radically distinct from those of their predecessors? Are they meant to address the crucial mistakes that plagued the previous two elections or resulted from them? This time, will the right to self-determination as defined by every Palestinian appear on the ballot?
“No election held under occupation, colonisation and apartheid excluding most sectors of the Palestinian people can be considered free.”
In other words, will the electoral process include all the sectors of the Palestinian people and their aspirations, or will it, like its predecessors, be exclusionary and limited? Will it help to deconstruct the fetish of “independence” away from foreign intervention?
In other words, will they be free elections even though they will be held, once again, under the barrel of the gun of the occupier? Will they reflect the genuine desires of the colonised Palestinian people? What will happen if these desires conflicted with those of the coloniser, as happened in 2006?
All the messages sent to the White House did not help convince it to accept the results. Similarly, all the concessions made by the authority of 1996 did not contribute to convincing the Israeli occupier to live up to its commitments made in the signed accords, let alone under international law.
It is time to break idols and overcome illusions. This is the time of revolutions, the time of change in the Arab world. No election held under occupation, colonisation and apartheid excluding most sectors of the Palestinian people can be considered free. If all Palestinians, especially in the Diaspora, do not participate, the result is known in advance.
The results can only serve the will and interests of the occupier, promoting further the fragmentation experienced by the Bantustan of the West Bank and Gaza, either through futile negotiations, lasting forever by design, if the secular right wins, or through continued blockade and further genocidal wars, if the religious right again manages to surprise everybody! Either/or is the only choice we are given by the new PLC elections, which would, in any event, represent only a third of the Palestinian people.
The democratic alternative is one that reflects the collective will of the Palestinian people. This alternative lies in elections to the Palestinian National Council (PNC), after reconstructing the PLO on the basis of true democracy to ensure genuine representation of all national and Islamic factions.
PNC elections will ensure representation of the Diaspora away from the mentality of false independence cultivated under an oppressive occupier. These elections can bring the Palestinian people closer to self-determination, as defined by international law, while restoring their legitimate right to multiple forms of resistance.
We should not, therefore, repeat the same mistake for a third time by falling into the trap of PLC elections, regardless of the meaningless wrangling over the allowance or disallowance of the work of the Central Election Commission in Gaza, as if it would be a national achievement.
The Palestinians of the Gaza strip and the West Bank should NOT go to the polls again, even if the two rival factions reach such an agreement. Our registration at the polls should only work to advance simultaneous PNC elections, since PLC members earn automatic membership to the PNC.
NO to PLC elections under policies of occupation, colonisation and Israeli apartheid. And YES to the elections to the PNC, the Palestinian parliament, the sole legitimate representative of the entire Palestinian people.
Haidar Eid is an associate professor at Al-Aqsa University in Gaza.