| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| Ralph Peters: Kicking Out Corruption |
| 2006-01-30 |
| In Wednesday’s Palestinian elections, Hamas, a fundamentalist party that sponsors terrorism and denies Israel's right to exist, won an outright majority. It was a victory for democracy. While supporting Israel's legitimate security needs, we have to analyze what happened without prejudice: Why did Hamas win? Why did Fatah, the movement that dominated the Palestinian cause for more than a generation, suffer a stunning defeat? After all, the Palestianian Authority had established a fledgling government — with broad international support. Aid was flowing. Israel left Gaza — and began to admit that its West Bank posture is unsustainable. Why did the Palestinian people overwhelmingly vote for terrorists? They didn't. Fatah lost because of the party's disgraceful corruption and neglect of the practical needs of its constituents. If not all politics are local, most are. Hamas won by providing basic services slighted by the Palestinian Authority and by avoiding the blatant corruption of Fatah's old guard. Did Hamas's hard line on Israel help it? Yes, with a minority of voters. But most Palestinians voted for a better quality of everyday life, not for a doomsday confrontation with Tel Aviv. Disgust had more to do with the out come than militancy. This isn't meant to whitewash Hamas's history of mass murder. On the contrary, the lesson we need to take from this election is one we should have learned years ago: Corruption is the greatest plague on the veloping world, opening the door for fanatical movements insightful enough to offer children a semblance of education and to provide the neglected poor with running water. In country after country, Islamic parties gained power by filling the vacuum left in urban slums by corrupt governments. Westerners made excuses as Turkish, Pakistani, Egyptian, Algerian, Palestinian and an array of African governments looted their national patrimonies, stole aid funds and be haved with utter disdain for their fellow citizens. The bills come due. No human being likes to live in squalor while his leaders splurge on London real estate. The wretched of the earth — to use that still-valid phrase — simply want their basic needs addressed. Above all, they want hope for their children. If the desires of the global poor could be summed up in three words, they'd be "work, education, pride." Throw in electricity and sanitation, and you've got a winning electoral program. Too often, we remain on the side of the corrupt and powerful, instead of standing up for the hurt and humiliated. If America won't defend the poor, who will? Extremist parties with bigoted agendas. So, what does the Hamas victory mean for us? First, the era of strong-man rule is ending. Democracy is on the march. Yet, from sheer inertia we often find ourselves on the side of the old, collapsing order — while our enemies grasp the potential of the ballot box better than we do. Second, we must be far more aggressive in spotting, publicizing and fighting corruption around the world — no matter the short-term costs. Corruption is the most insidious enemy of rule-of-law democracy. Third, we have to avoid knee-jerk reactions. By reflexively condemning electoral outcomes we don't like, from Venezuela to the Middle East, we only make heroes of our opponents — while sounding like hypocrites ourselves. President Bush's comments yesterday struck about the right note, accepting the results and praising the positives, while staying noncommital on future relations. Fourth, democracy requires patience. Whether in Iraq or Bolivia, we can't force voters to make the "right" choices. Electorates need to make their own mistakes — and learn from them. Give Hamas time to discover how much harder it is to govern than to oppose a government. See if the movement evolves — or defaults to violence. In power, Hamas will have to deliver the goods. And better lives for Palestinians can't be achieved through terrorism. The ball's in Hamas's court. If we don't like their serve, we've got a powerful backhand. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #5 Palestinian People, eh. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-01-30 18:48 |
| #4 "a choice between two mutually homicdal groups of fanatics" And why isn't that a democratic choice? Democracy and liberty aren't synonyms, and nowhere is it written in stone that you automatically get good government when people vote. (Counterexamples abound, from ancient Athens to now. California, Russia, etc) I'm still surprised that the election was held at all. I expected violence to "force postponement" indefinitely. |
| Posted by: James 2006-01-30 14:30 |
| #3 Col. Ralf has some valid points here. The election was both democracy in action and a vote against the amazing corruption of the PA. I've seen estimates that the PA was hauling in around 1 billion a year, so over the past two or three decades we are talking somewhere on the order of 20~30 billion dollars. For that kind of cash, you can not only build a shining city on a hill, but build the damn hill, too. I see Hamas' victory as a clarifying moment. No more weaseling back and forth between peaceful roadmap/death to joos depending on the target audience. The best historical analogy is when the German people elected Hitler. Another example of democracy in action followed by people getting the government they deserved. It is possible that Hamas will straighten out and function as an actual government but I'd sooner expect monkeys flying out of my butt. I do expect Hamas to translate their 'mandate' into a major offensive against Israel. The Israelis, behind their wall, will play rough. None of it will be pretty, but the result will be better than the current "slow war". And there is always the chance those monkeys will fly! |
| Posted by: SteveS 2006-01-30 14:23 |
| #2 I think he was ironic. |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-01-30 13:48 |
| #1 Cripes, just when I thought Colonel Peters was going to make sense again. "Victory for Democracy??" What is he on? However you may define democracy, it ain't having a choice between two mutually homicdal groups of fanatics, who can only be told apart by the extent of their corruption and religious insanity. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-01-30 12:19 |