Is Marwan Barghouti
Right To Run?
By Hasan Abu
Nimah & Ali Abunimah
09 December 2004
The
Electronic Intifada
Marwan
Barghouti, the Palestinian resistance leader imprisoned by Israel, has
caused an uproar by reversing his earlier decision not to run for president
of the Palestinian Authority.
Barghouti may not
be able to run on the Fatah ticket after the movement picked Mahmoud
Abbas as its sole candidate in an opaque process. However, Barghouti
has the right to run as an individual and as one of a handful of Palestinians
widely-known enough in the occupied territories to make the election
a serious contest, his candidacy can only benefit democracy. He must
obviously be aware that he may be breaking Fatah rules, and he must
be equally prepared to face the consequences. If there is any validity
to the claim that the Palestinian Authority intends to run democratic
elections then everyone ought to welcome Barghouti's candidacy.
Unfortunately, though,
Barghouti's candidacy has provoked some very negative reactions that
cast serious doubt on the sincerity of those who have long been calling
on the Palestinians to speed up democratization and reform as a way
to advance the peace process. These attitudes indicate that many of
those calls were simply a cover for inaction and fear of confronting
the true obstacle to regional peace: Israel.
Hatem Abdul Qader,
a Palestinian official, was quoted saying that "we would do our
utmost to persuade Barghouthi to withdraw his candidacy to avoid a split
in Fatah." Another, Al Tayyeb Abdul Rahim, described Barghouthi's
candidacy as "an irresponsible step, odd, difficult to understand
and stands contrary to Fatah traditions of exercising unity." Even
President Mubarak of Egypt chimed in, claiming that "Barghouti's
decision to run has damaged Palestinian unity." He added that the
candidacy will split Palestinians at a time when there "should
be one voice and no differences at a time when we need to stay clear
of differences."
The American people
were "split" into almost two equal halves in the latest presidential
elections, and we did not hear anyone blaming the candidates for splitting
the American people at a time when America badly needs "one voice."
Most democratic elections split people sometimes to the extent that
winners secure their victory by a fraction of one percent of the vote,
but they win and their countries stay in one piece. Sometimes elections
produce unsatisfying results, offering no clear mandate to any of the
competing parties. This is the basic nature of democracy and such problems
are not reasons for abandoning it. The whole point is to provide a way
to manage differences not eliminate them.
The Palestinians
have two options. The first is a free and fair election that provides
a geniune choice and in which the people, and no one else, decide the
outcome. Palestinians are fortunate that with Marwan Barghouti, Mustafa
Barghouti (a highly-respected leader and Marwan's distant cousin, who
represents the opposition Palestinian National Initiative), as well
as several others, all candidates, there could be a real contest. A
fair election requires the PA not to misuse its apparatus to unfairly
skew the election, and that Israel not interfere.
The second option
is to put empty slogans about "Palestinian unity," or even
"Fatah unity" before the interests of the Palestinian people
at a time when those interests are under unprecedented threat.
It is obvious that
all the calls for "unity," as well as Palestinian officials'
anger at Barghouthi's decision are no more than a veil to disguise a
pre-planned deal to have Mahmoud Abbas succeed Yasser Arafat. That seems
to be the most convenient arrangement to protect the interests of the
Oslo party, as well as the peace process operators who naively or opportunistically
believe that the selection of Abbas will open the way for a settlement,
albeit on Israeli terms. It also suits Israel, which expects Abbas to
end the Intifada unconditionally and further lower the ceiling of Palestinian
demands. While the Israelis would take that as an enormous additional
gain they would also never allow any movement beyond that point towards
actual peace based on a just resolution to the conflict.
So why bother with
all this talk about democracy and elections? Fatah has already chosen
Mahmoud Abbas. The international peace process industry has already
declared that Abbas is the right "moderate" to lead the Palestinians.
Fatah, as the "ruling party" in the Palestinian non-state
acts as if it has the final word and should not be challenged. We have
already heard sarcastic remarks about a 99.9 percent vote result for
Abbas addressed to one PA official. But long-time PA official Yasser
Abed Rabbo denied that this figure was the target. "Something around
eighty percent would be sufficient," he told the BBC Arabic Service.
Actually, only in
the worst dictatorships does the "unity" candidate who is
the "one voice" of the nation win with 99 percent of the vote.
Saddam Hussein claimed to have won his last presidential election by
such a majority, as have a number of other Arab leaders, including those
who offer Palestinians their advice.
Is this the model
the PA wants to follow and is it on such grounds that it deserved so
much support and Marwan Barghouthi so much condemnation?
As the West Bank
head of the Fatah organization, Barghouti's association with strong
arm tactics during the Oslo period undermined his popular support from
middle class Palestinians, but recent polls show him running ahead of
Abbas, an indication that his active leadership in the resistance gained
him widespread grassroots credibility that few other Palestinian figures
can match. Some Palestinians, who might not support Barghouti if he
were free, see great symbolism in a potential victory for him when he
is behind Israeli bars. For Israel, Barghouti is the head of the Al-Aqsa
Martyrs' Brigades, a resistance organization that switched to suicide
attacks inside Israel following Israel's assassination of regional leader
Raed Karmi in January 2001, though Israel has never been able to prove
Barghouti's personal involvement in such attacks which escalated in
the months after his capture.
It is viciously
hypocritical to call for Palestinian democracy and then seek to deny
the people the right to choose the person they see fit to lead them.
Let the Palestinians in the occupied territories decide whether they
see Barghouthi as one of their national heroes who struggled bravely
against the occupation and never feared the personal consequences or
whether they consider him no more than an "irresponsible"
spoiler of Fatah's sacred unity.
What indeed is irresponsible,
odd and difficult to understand is for any Palestinian to be treated
in this cruel manner not by his Israeli persecutors but by his own comrades.
Marwan Barghouti is castigated not when he lives among his comrades
but when he is serving five life sentences in an Israeli jail for "crimes"
he ostensibly committed defending his people and land while others were
basking in the privileges, false prestige and wealth they traded for
the rights and dignity of their people.
Ambassador Hasan
Abu Nimah is former permanent representative of Jordan at the United
Nations. Ali Abunimah is co-founder of the The Electronic Intifada and
Electronic Iraq