Posted on February 28, 2006

Copyright © 2006 by Richard Warren Field

The Palestinians have elected Hamas to lead them. Yes, they have chosen an undisputed terrorist group, an avowed, uncompromising enemy of Israel, to lead them as they try to make their move toward statehood. Media sentiment, expressed through commentators and through the tone of the headlines, seems to be that this is a setback, proof that parts of the Middle East are not ready for democracy. But as events evolve, we may discover that this was not a failure of democracy, but democracy in action. As long as true democracy remains, those of us who believe in democracy must have faith in its power and let democracy work.

We need to recall, from our experience with our own democracy, that election results are never permanent. The electorate chooses leaders based on the agendas of the candidates. Those leaders then stand for elections and answer for the results of their performances, and the effectiveness of their agendas. With this in mind, there are three scenarios that could pertain to the Palestinian situation. We need to examine them, and how they are likely to resolve. Then we can consider if the Hamas victory represents a true failure of democracy, or if it is part of a process unfolding.

First, the Palestinian electorate may have done what electorates have been doing since the beginning of democracy—they may have voted more against one candidacy than in favor of another. It is my hope, and my belief, that this is the most likely explanation for the recent result. The corruption and ineffectiveness of the status quo was a much larger factor than a vote in favor of the reprehensible Hamas.

If this is the case, then Hamas is doomed to fail. They will not be able to deliver better results to the electorate. At the next election, they will be voted out. In fact, winning the election may turn out to be Hamas’s worst nightmare. They will discover that rebelling against authority is far different from being the group with the authority, with the responsibility and accountability for results. They will need to provide answers to practical issues of governance that they will not have as long as they continue to embrace their radical, internationally scorned ideology of intractable belligerence. When they fail to provide effective leadership, they will eliminate themselves as an effective option.

Second, the Palestinians may have made a positive decision to select Hamas, as opposed to a decision based on a negative vote against the status quo. This would mean that at this time, the Palestinians really do favor continued conflict with Israel, and a policy of refusing to recognize Israel, or even Israel’s right to exist. This is also democracy in action. Under this scenario, the Palestinians have made a policy choice. This clarifies for Israel, and other interested parties, the Palestinians’ current preferences. The Israeli government will know they do not have a peace partner. They can take steps to defend themselves. No reasonable parties will deny them the right to take aggressive action to protect themselves against a governmental authority with this clearly expressed hostile policy agenda.

Of course, the Palestinians will also face all the consequences of their choice of leadership. They will lose all the benefits of trading and interacting with a peaceful and prosperous Israel. They will lose aid and support from many of the nations of the world. They will lose any further concessions Israel might consider to complete a settlement with a new Palestinian state. They will lose any further moves down the “roadmap for peace.” It is likely that the Palestinians will grow tired of the consequences of these extremist choices. Hamas will then be forced to either moderate their policies, or get voted out. That is democracy.

For this second scenario to unfold toward the best possibility of peace, it is absolutely essential that our own democracy does not compromise our own policies. Just because Hamas was democratically elected does not mean we are bound by that electorate’s choice. We respect the right of a country’s electorate to make the wrong choice. And we are allowed to say that a democratically determined choice is wrong—it is not sacrosanct or immune from criticism just because people voted for it. Spain’s electorate, after sustaining an Al Qaeda attack just before their election in 2004, voted in a government anxious to appease Al Qaeda. We respect the decision without agreeing with it. The difference between the United States and all the “superpowers” that have come before is that we respect wrong choices, against our interests, by international democracies. But that doesn’t mean we have to accept those policies without argument, and without leveling our own consequences (peacefully, within the bounds of international law). The United States is absolutely correct to withhold aid and refuse to deal with a government expressing the avowed aims of Hamas. That must be a consequence of the Hamas policy, or Hamas will not be accountable for the true results of the policy.

The third and darkest scenario would involve Hamas refusing to give up power after their policies fail and the Palestinian condition worsens. That would be a real setback for democracy, much more than the election result. This scenario offers the toughest road to peace. There would probably be some form of a civil war, a terrible ordeal for a group of people who have suffered greatly over the last sixty years. If Hamas was victorious in that civil war, and set up a dictatorship, then Israel would have an unambiguous belligerent to deal with. But the situation would be clarified. Israel would be likely to win any military confrontation. After that victory, Palestinians may try democracy again. Sometimes a side choosing militancy needs to experience defeat before deciding to abandon militancy.

This third scenario would be the most regrettable. But I also believe it is the least likely, particularly if the Palestinian people embrace their taste of democracy and freedom.

So we need to stop looking at the Hamas victory as a “tragedy,” as some sort of “failure.” This is democracy. If we believe in democracy, we need to let it work. The Palestinians may need to try this Hamas choice on for size as a prelude to ruling it out once and for all. After they have lived with the negative consequences of the Hamas choice, and have abandoned the choice through a democratic process, they will be ready to choose another faction, a faction favoring peace and prosperity with a willing Israel. That faction will hopefully understand the need to be responsive to the electorate, without the extensive corruption of Fatah. If democracy is to work among the currently non-democratic nations there, we must understand that it may not be successful in one grand step. The new electorates will not always make prudent choices. But because they own the choices, they can take responsibility for correcting them. Our own democracy suffered through missteps. The new democracies of this century will take their own missteps. If we believe in the power of democracy and freedom, then we need to have the faith and patience to let them succeed.

Richard Warren Field is the author of the upcoming novel, The Swords of Faith. For more information, go to RichardWarrenField.com.