A Month After: The Hamas Victory and Its Implications

/A Personal Message from the President of the PeaceWorks Foundation-OneVoice/

 

In Tulkarem, Hamas captured 27.4% of the district vote for the Palestinian Legislative Council while Fatah captured a plurality of 34.4%. And yet Hamas received two district seats while Fatah got zero. Do you know why?

 

What was the only district where Hamas got zero PLC seats – and what makes it so remarkable?

 

Read on.

 

Immediately after results for the PLC elections were released, OneVoice Executive Teams on the Palestinian, Israeli, American and European offices coordinated a month of intensive consultation with Board members, staff, activists, scholars and ordinary citizens to evaluate the meaning of the Hamas victory and the implications on OneVoice’s strategy. The results of our research and analysis will be shared over the course of the next two weeks in four installments:

 

• today’s analysis on the Hamas victory;
• an update from activists on the ground;
• a broader analysis on Israeli and Palestinian developments; and
• unveiling the updated OneVoice strategy and Campaign for 2006.

 

We start with the facts. The situation is serious, but even more seriously misunderstood.

 

The Danger

 

We must not dismiss the danger to conflict-resolution posed by the militant ideological leadership of Hamas. Leaders like Khaled Mashal and Mahmoud Al-Zahar have consistently reiterated their vision for the total annihilation of the State of Israel – see http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP108306 – and http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP96405. There is no reason to doubt them. It is naïve to expect those who see Palestine as part of an Islamic trust that forms part of an inviolable Islamic caliphate to give up their deeply held religious beliefs.

 

Similarly, we should not dismiss the base of support that helped bring Hamas to power, combining ideological kinship with the global Islamic movement, appreciation for its social network and discipline, and respect for Hamas’ fierce opposition to America and to Israel’s occupation. Some interpreted the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza as the outcome of Hamas’ armed struggle and – enraged by the humiliation of checkpoints and what they see as unimpeded construction of settlements and the separation wall – endorsed Hamas.

Drivers Behind Hamas Success

 

But the fact is that 56% of Palestinians did not vote for Hamas, and out of the 44% that did, over half did so not because of - but in spite of - its staunch ideological rejection of the Oslo accords. Ironically, data suggests that support towards a negotiated settlement with Israel continues to rise among the Palestinian population. The majority of those who voted for Hamas did so primarily due to domestic considerations.

 

As shown below, the biggest number voted to end abuse and fraud in the Palestinian Authority and misuse of public assets, protesting what they perceive as pervasive corruption in Fatah. Many felt that Hamas may succeed in reversing the “anarchy of arms” that has turned much of Palestine into dangerous gang-dominated fiefdoms for over 4 years.

 

The Hamas campaign was clever and disciplined, standing as the “Change and Reform” party (a message that resonated strongly with the Palestinian people fed up with corruption) and recruiting women and Christian candidates when appropriate for its bloc.

 

In contrast, Fatah displayed total disarray, first breaking up into old and new guards, then being unable to agree on party lists or to coordinate candidates, resulting in competing Fatah candidates that often split up the vote and delivered the election to Hamas opponents.

 

In Tulkarem, for example, Hamas showed discipline by only fielding two candidates. While its candidates only got a cumulative total of 27.4% of the vote, they won 2 out of the 3 seats available (or 66% of seats). In contrast, Fatah fielded three candidates. While they jointly got 34.4% of the vote - more than any other party – they split the vote among themselves and won none of the seats. See more examples and a thorough study at http://www.fairvote.org/media/pep/Palestine.pdf.

 

In effect, due to the splitting of the vote and the winner-take-all factor, Hamas is overrepresented by 18 seats at the district level (27% more).

 

According to a JMCC poll, http://jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2006/no57.pdf, of Palestinians who voted for Hamas:

· 43% stated they did so to end corruption and another 7.5% to stop Fatah’s control over the government

· 18.8% for religious reasons

· 11.8 % voted because of its political agenda, and

· 10.7% did so with the hope to see better living conditions.

 

The fact remains that the 44% of the population which voted for Hamas knew that they were voting for a party that advocates an armed struggle that shall not cease until the destruction of the State of Israel. Why did they not vote for independent parties recognized as non-corrupt (of which 4 different blocks received only 3, 2, 2, and 2 seats)? Apparently because Hamas was superior in persuading voters that it was up to the task.

 

The Silver Linings

 

Amidst the sobering results, many analysts have found positive developments in the election process: the end of one party rule, democratic and transparent elections with exceptionally high participation, and marking the first time in the history of the Arab world where the ruling party is rejected by the people through democratic elections and a violence-free transition. The true test for democracies is whether they can go through two such transitions, so the next elections will prove the real test.

 

But the greatest silver lining shines from the city of Qalqilya (Kalkiliyah). Qalqilya is the only city where Hamas was denied any district PLC seats. What is remarkable is that this is also the single city where Hamas had swept with total control of the local government after municipal elections last year. Hamas immediately moved to institute social restrictions and edicts that, apparently, did not sit well with the population.

 

The question then is whether Hamas has learned its lesson and will moderate its stance as it tackles the reality of daily governance and the imperative of pragmatism to improve the economy and the daily lives of its citizens, or whether its intransigence will prove its undoing and dispel its mythic appeal to Palestinians.

 

Hamas has selected Ismail Haniya as its Prime Minister as what could portend some level of pragmatism. The new Parliament is to be officially inaugurated on March 7^th 2006. Hamas is seeking to build a coalition unity government with Ministers including Fatah members.

 

Abbas or Hamas

 

President Mahmoud Abbas remains as Commander in Chief and has pledged to continue overseeing the armed forces, demanding that Hamas accede to integrate its armed forces therein, strongly pledged to continue seeking negotiations towards a comprehensive peace agreement with Israel, and advised that should Hamas not cooperate, he would be ready to call for new elections within his constitutional power.

 

Many have already dismissed President Abbas’s prospects, even though he not only evinces the most sincere will to resolve this conflict, but also doing so while still being the most popular and trusted figure among Palestinians, according to the latest polls. Buttressing Abbas may be the best hope for the region.

 

The different paths that Hamas and the region can take will be discussed in the next analysis, but the key question is whether the movement will restrain the most ideological of its leaders and enable the more moderate to govern pragmatically and respect the Palestinian Authority’s and the PLO’s agreements with Israel (as 51.7% o Palestinians believe Hamas must), or whether it will steadily move not just in the footsteps of Iran’s Islamic fundamentalist theocracy but even into the shoes of the Iranian leadership.

Iran as Spoiler

 

Indeed, the meeting between Hamas head Khaled Mashaal, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei (the “Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution”) and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0602206299193731.htm, must be viewed with alarm. Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons has put it in collision course with most of the world. Iran has and will continue to try to divide the West from the Islamic world as a tactic to forestall isolation. The Iran of today is keen to foster acrimony between Palestine and Israel and its potential for mischief should not be underestimated. 
 

The People Are The Partner

 

And still: 84% of Palestinians support a negotiated resolution of the conflict according to polls just a week after the PLC elections. We know from daily interactions in the street that this is constant: just like the vast majority of Israelis cherish peace and security and would support a two-state solution, so the Palestinian people are fed up with the war and occupation and are willing to achieve a compromise along the lines of the Clinton parameters as synthesized in OneVoice Citizen Negotiations where 150,000 Palestinian and Israeli citizens thus far have participated. See samples: http://blog.onevoicemovement.org/one_voice/2004/10/index.html and http://blog.onevoicemovement.org/one_voice/2004/06/index.html and http://blog.onevoicemovement.org/one_voice/2004/05/index.html.

 

Amidst a perception that there is no partner on the other side and a reality that the Hamas leadership’s deeply-rooted ideology of an Islamic caliphate does not bode well for peace negotiations, the role of the people on the ground to break the shackles of extremism and ensure accountability for its will only increases.

 

The Palestinian people that voted Hamas in to office to clean the corrupt house have continued to support negotiations towards a two-state solution and their message must be amplified in order to ensure it is not ignored.