Juan Cole reacts to the Hamas victory [view ad to read article].
“In a mystifying self-contradiction, Bush trumpeted that ‘the Palestinians had an election yesterday, the results of which remind me about the power of democracy.’ If elections were really the same as democracy, and if Bush was so happy about the process, then we might expect him to pledge to work with the results, which by his lights would be intrinsically good. But then he suddenly swerved away from this line of thought, reverting to boilerplate and saying, ‘On the other hand, I don’t see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform. And I know you can’t be a partner in peace if you have a — if your party has got an armed wing.’”
“So Bush is saying that even though elections are democracy and democracy is good and powerful, it has produced unacceptable results in this case, and so the resulting Hamas government will lack the legitimacy necessary to allow the United States to deal with it or go forward in any peace process. Bush’s double standard is clear in his diction, since he was perfectly happy to deal with Israel’s Likud Party, which is dedicated to the destruction of the budding Palestinian state, and which used the Israeli military and security services for its party platform in destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority throughout the early years of this century. As Orwell reminded us in ‘Animal Farm,’ some are more equal than others.”
I have seen pessimism across the political spectrum regarding the Hamas victory. The right bluntly says “I told you so” and “the Palestinians have revealed their true anti-Jewish face.” By contrast, people like Juan Cole justifiably point out how US policy has boomeranged and led to the rise of an anti-democratic, fundamentalist regime in Iraq and Palestine (of course, let’s not forget we have the same sort of regime ruling in Washington D.C.). They too are pessimistic about the outcome.
Juan Cole is right to point out that Bush’s equation “democracy = elections” is simplistic and wrong-headed. Using this equation, Bush justifies his own anti-democratic policies by citing his electoral victory. A true democracy is measured by its adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By that standard, very few countries are truly democratic. But from there to here there is a wide range of possibilities.
There is no question that the elections in Palestine represent the will of the Palestinian people for change, and so partakes of democracy. The anti-democratic danger of Hamas rule for Palestinians, lies with the lack of institutional protection for Palestinian rights. But that lack existed and was exploited by the Fatah regime as well. In that sense, the Palestinian people are no worse off with the anti-democratic Hamas than with the anti-democratic Fatah.
Most importantly, the key source of the anti-democratic and oppressive existence of the Palestinan people is not their own rulers, but the Israeli occupation. The vote for Hamas was the only way that Palestinians could express their anger and despair about the oppression of the occupation.
There are those who raise the analogy of the Hamas victory to Hitler coming to power through democratic means. The equation of Hamas to Hitler and the Nazis is as fundamentally flawed as the reverse equation of Israelis to Nazis. As I’ve often pointed out, the Hamas has most in common to the fundamentalist Israeli settler movement. The latter has never been ostracized or condemned by Israeli or Western politicians. On the contrary, the Republican fundamentalist right in the US has warmly embraced Jewish militants who call for genocide against Palestinian Arabs and deny the existence of the Palestinian state. Their anti-Hamas hysteria is truly hypocritical.
Long ago I learned not to try and predict the future. Six months ago who would have predicted that Ariel Sharon would be out of the picture, that the Labor party would return to its socialist roots and Hamas would be the new rulers in the PA? What is clear is that the people on both sides are tired of the stagnation, tired of the conflict and looking for positive change. Such moments of despair and instability can be dangerous, as was true in the period between the World Wars. On the other hand they can lead to calm and to stabilization, as in South Africa or Northern Ireland. In such times, ramping up the rhetoric, or worse, the violence is certainly not a wise course.
Perhaps I am a hopeless optimist, but somehow I believe the situation is finally taking a turn for the better.