Please note - this article was originally published on the id21 website which has now closed. This and other articles produced by id21 were archived by Eldis in 2009 and are not actively maintained. If you find links and references which are no longer valid please email eldis@ids.ac.uk.

Building democracy in Palestine

The victory of Hamas in the 2006 elections for the Palestinian Authority led to the international community cutting off aid to the Palestinian territories. This reaction, which sees Hamas as a cause rather than a symptom of the Palestinian crisis, may undermine the promotion of democracy in the region.

The liberal peace theory states that democracies do not go to war with each other. The 2006 elections for the Palestinian Authority (PA) were therefore expected to boost the peace process with Israel. The victory of Hamas, which rejects the peace process and is considered a terrorist organisation by the West, was a shock to western supporters of democratisation in the Middle East. But their reaction - stopping aid - only punishes the Palestinian people and reflects an incomplete understanding of the peace process and why Hamas was elected. A paper from the University of Bradford, UK, assesses the Palestinian crisis and how it relates to the liberal peace theory.

The current Palestinian crisis is the result of a flawed peace process that started with the Oslo Accords in 1993, which set up the PA. Though Palestinians considered the PA as the first step to an independent, democratic state, the restrictions placed on its sovereignty meant that neither peace nor democracy was achieved. By 2000, the second Intifada (uprising against Israel) had been launched.

The paper finds that key factors related to Hamas’s electoral success and the defeat of Fatah (which previously controlled the PA) include:

The incomplete peace process: there have been no negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians since 2001. All peace processes have emphasised Israeli security first, while denying the PA the right to defend its people against Israeli incursions.
The PA’s lack of sovereignty: Israel retains control over the borders of the West Bank and Gaza which it frequently closes for ‘security reasons’; the Paris Protocols (economic agreements between Israel and PA) limit PA power over policies; and Israel controls two-thirds of the PA’s revenue.
The deepening social and economic crisis caused by continuing Israeli occupation: this includes the building of illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank; checkpoints and roadblocks; and the building of the ‘security barrier’.
The corruption and authoritarianism associated with Fatah.
The continued existence of armed groups that challenge the PA’s authority.
Hamas’s work in providing social services: due to many years of economic devastation Palestinian society has become heavily dependent upon this.

Fatah has accepted defeat, but as it still controls the presidency, the PA’s decision making has been paralysed. The international community’s response has made matters worse. The current crisis could lead to civil war – what Israel and the international community would do in such a circumstance is not clear.

The researcher concludes that Hamas’s election and the international community’s response shows the liberal peace theory is naive and in its implementation it is deeply political. Other key observations include.

A successful developmental state needs: enough power to ensure security; a civil society strong enough to prevent corruption; the ability to improve state capacity (such as infrastructure, social services); and the ability to implement economic policies.
The PA lacks these dimensions: it is not yet a fully functioning democracy or even a state due to the restrictions placed on it by Israel and now the international community.
Elections cannot settle a conflict that negotiations have failed to end, particularly when this involves a powerful neighbour.
‘Demilitarising politics’ will take time and cooperation, not isolation
The West’s reaction to Hamas will only undermine democracy in the region, indicating to other Islamist groups that it only accepts election results if the victor meets with its approval.

Source(s):
‘Building Democracy in Palestine: Liberal Peace Theory and the Election of Hamas’, Democratization, Vol.13, No.5, pages 739-755, by Mandy Turner, 2006

Funded by: Economic and Social Research Council (RES 223-25-0071), UK

id21 Research Highlight: 12 June 2007

Further Information:
Mandy Turner
Department of Peace Studies
Pemberton Building
University of Bradford
Richmond Road
Bradford BD7 1DP
UK

Tel: +44 (0)1274 234776
Fax: +44 (0)1274 235240
Contact the contributor: m.turner4@bradford.ac.uk

Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford

Transformation of War Economies Project, University of Bradford

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DfID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Articles featured on the id21 site may be copied or quoted without restriction provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2009 IDS. All rights reserved.

id21 is funded by the UK Department for International Development. id21 is one of a family of knowledge services at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. id21 is a www.oneworld.net partner and an affiliate of www.mediachannel.org. IDS is a charitable company, No. 877338.