The resignation of Yasser Arafat’s Cabinet, forced by the Palestinian Parliament, opens a new and intriguing chapter in Palestinian politics. It is an unprecedented blow to Arafat’s leadership and method of government. Time and again, Palestinians have complained that their government was incompetent or corrupt, if not both. Time and again, nothing more than lip service was paid to their complaints. This time the parliamentarians said enough was enough.
What is particularly significant is that members of Arafat’s own Fatah movement were just as determined in forcing the Cabinet out: never before have Fatah members so openly challenged Arafat. Of course, there was a strong element of self-preservation in this: they know that at street level, the allegations of incompetence and corruption ring loud; they could have painful consequences in the January’s Palestinian elections. Even so, there is a genuine desire on the part of Palestinian legislators from all quarters that the legislature should have a greater say in political decisions.
As such, we are probably seeing the birth of a new order. Until now it has been impossible to conceive of the Palestinian political scene without Arafat standing center stage, holding all the reins. Palestinians will certainly continue to rally round him in times of crisis, as they did when he was besieged in Ramallah. His being under siege was a symbol of the greater siege that the Palestinian people as a whole have had to endure. He is a personification of their struggle, a father figure. And all the indications are that he will be re-elected president by a huge margin. However, while parliamentarians did not go as far as saying that they want him away from everyday politics, it is telling that some legislators would like a prime minister, appointed by Parliament, to be in charge of the day-to-day government. That shift is likely to continue now that the Cabinet has been sacked and it is not difficult to see a rapid evolution whereby Parliament becomes the final arbiter.
It is a healthy development, a sign of political maturity, all the more remarkable in that Palestinians are still occupied and at war, and in times of war, nations invariably allow individuals, prime ministers or presidents, to make all the decisions. Moreover, it strengthens the Palestinians’ position vis-à-vis both Washington and the Israelis. In June, President Bush demanded that the Palestinians replace Arafat and commit themselves to reform: what better example of reform could there be than their Parliament forcing the Cabinet’s resignation? This is Palestinian democracy in action, and in a way that the Americans will not only understand but also identify with.
Palestinian politics appear to be about to enter a new era of accountability and, hopefully, transparency with a separation of powers. But there is another side to such a development that needs to be kept in mind: it could also be the route to political impotence. Imagine a Palestinian Parliament as multifaceted as the Italian Parliament. Is Palestinian politics ready for this? Who knows?
For the moment, however, it is clear that the Palestinians have crossed a Rubicon in their political development; wherever they go from here, they are unlikely to go back.
