On Sunday September 2nd, a little known about or spoken of tremor shook the Palestinian political landscape; the aftershocks of which are sure to have a serious impact on the future of Palestine’s internal and external conflicts. After years of pressure, lobbying, and raising awareness among citizens on the importance of Proportional Electoral Law by individuals and civil society organizations, President Abbas officially decreed the electoral legislation so ending the mixed proportional-majority system which helped in part to usher in the 2006 legislative victory of Hamas. Before discussing the new legislation’s prospective impact on Palestine, it might be helpful to review the terminology and methods underlying proportionality. Proportional representation was designed to eliminate the problems that emanate from plurality-majority systems by attempting to create a more accurate representation of parties, political and racial minorities, result in fewer ‘wasted votes’, higher voter turnout, more women in elected positions, and the removal of the practice of political gerrymandering (the manipulation of district borders which ensures a majority for one or another party). In this system political parties produce lists of election worthy candidates which they present to the voters. In the closed system, as adopted in Palestine, these lists are fixed according to internal party deliberation and voters then cast their ballots for the party as a whole. The percentage of the vote received on a national, rather than district, basis corresponds to the number of seats they will fill in the new government with officials drawn from their respective lists. For those believe that this will bring about only more of the same, it is worth discussing some of the ‘hoped-for’ outcomes of this controversial new legislation.
It sounds good; so what are some of the prospective problems arising from this situation? The first is the President’s decision to attach three stipulations onto the law. In order for a party to put forth a list of candidates, they must first recognize the PLO, the Basic Law, and the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence (PDI). Most parties will be happy to abide by these regulations, as they already do; but what about Hamas? They are excluded from the PLO, though they recognize it implicitly in their effort to join; they recognize each article of the Basic Law, but not the introduction which places the PDI at the foundation of Palestinian civic and legal life; and finally, they do not recognize the PDI itself which calls for a two-state solution, recognition of UN Security Council Resolutions and secularism. Though the stipulations seem to effectively exclude much of the Hamas agenda, it should not be forgotten that proportional electoral law itself was something that Hamas pushed hard to achieve during their previous campaigns. The fact that they unexpectedly won, thanks in large part to both the mixed-majority system which squeezed out viable alternatives to a defunct Fatah, and Hamas’ own ability to effectively garner support through a grassroots community level social service sector, makes for little surprise that they are challenging the new law. So if Hamas is seen as the obvious loser, how do the potential victors, the progressive parties whose representation is expected to grow, view the situation? Well not surprisingly, there is a fight. One group I spoke to on the progressive left viewed the new law as a major achievement in Palestinian democracy. Now women would be more represented, progressives would pose viable challenges to the status quo, movements would shift into professional parties, patrimony would be undermined and the stipulations provide a core set of principles upon which Palestinians can agree and unite. After all unity might not be such a bad idea come November. Others on the progressive left told me that they did not see the situation in such a rosy light. They saw it as a clear attempt by Fatah to undermine Hamas’ local support structure and reestablish their hegemony over political power. They felt that though proportionality would help progressive parties like their own, they would nonetheless remain marginalized in a national politic dominated by Fatah. They also believed that although women would perhaps enjoy a greater degree of representation, this does not necessarily mean that democracy has improved, but rather that it could be a ploy by Abbas to sell the international community a Palestinian government that they can swallow. Besides, “how do you improve democracy by breaking the law?” Arguments are nothing new to the progressive movement, but in Palestine it is reaching a point that could further fragment their efforts and shared agenda. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), a respected and credible NGO from Gaza, released a September 4th press release stating that the electoral reform law is illegitimate. Yet throughout the following ten observations laid out by the PCHR, five (1,7-10) state explicit support of the reform and remind us “that the full proportional representation system was a demand for most Palestinian civil society and political parties” for a long time. PCHR, and most other progressives, view this law “as a continuation of the undermining of the legislative branch”. On the other hand, they also recognize that “any call for elections during the current circumstances” is “unrealistic”, as well as the fact that the PLC was undermined prior to this emergency government both by Israel’s “detention of more than 40 PLC members from the majority party” and the recent events in Gaza. The argument is becoming schizophrenic and perhaps even counterproductive. Nobody among Palestinian progressives is arguing about the constitutionally illegal manner in which this law was drafted and adopted. Nobody is arguing the near impossibility of passing ‘legitimate’ constitutional legislation in the face of the occupation and the current political division of Gaza and the West Bank. Finally, nobody on the progressive front disagrees with the law itself…in fact they all want it badly. The debate seems to be split along that age old lines of means and ends, principle versus gain. Civil Society must rally against the actions of this government in order to hold it in check in the absence of a legislative branch. Progressives must be careful though, if they rally too hard against adoption of this new electoral reform, they might get what they ask for…but not what they want. Perhaps progressives would be better served unifying and organizing their political base. The possibility of elections in the near term seems grim, but the opportunity to create an effective third party, or grouping of parties, seems possible in the face of continued frustration with an unreformed Fatah and a belligerent Hamas. They should continue to rally Palestine towards unity and new elections that are free, fair and inclusive, and then be ready to succeed in them when they come. If a king offers a penny only the weakest of subjects would accept it; but if a king breaks his crown, only an idiot would fix it for him. Joseph DeVoir is a volunteer for the Palestinian Centre for Peace and Democracy in Ramallah. He can be reached at joe_devoir@hotmail.com.
Read More...
By: Amira Hass
Date: 27/05/2013
By: Phoebe Greenwood
Date: 27/05/2013
By: Jillian Kestler-D'Amours
Date: 27/05/2013
|