COLUMN: What price victory?

From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '96 From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '96Numerous 'irregularities' in the recentFrom Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '96Numerous 'irregularities' in the recentPalestinian elections call into questionFrom Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '96Numerous 'irregularities' in the recentPalestinian elections call into questionYasser Arafat's commitment to democracy. Two weeks ago, the Palestinian people took another step toward self-government by electing a president and a legislative council. By all accounts, Yasser Arafat won the presidency with upwards of 80 percent of the vote, and the Fatah party, which he chairs, won a majority of the 88 council seats. The papers and airwaves were full of praise for the conduct of the elections, which were marked by an incredibly high level of turnout -- perhaps 90 percent. Election observers, most prominently former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, announced to the world that while there were some "irregularities" in the conduct of the elections, they did not affect the results. Thus, the elections were declared to be fair, and heads of state from across the globe called to congratulate Arafat on his victory. Beneath the surface declaration of legitimacy, however, lies a tremendous outcry of criticism and complaints about the actual conduct of the elections. Without a doubt, a pattern of harassment and abuse by the Palestinian Authority's security services created "a climate of intimidation and fear" for journalists and opposition candidates that calls the "fairness" of the election into question. The Palestinian Authority (PA) has long been criticized for failing to recognize the freedom of the press, and often exerts control in ways that boggle the mind. As a result, the local press is forced to follow Arafat's commands and thus fails to be objective about the nature of the PA. It is easy to see why Palestinian newspaper editors behave as they are told, for one was recently arrested when he decided to put a favorable story about Arafat on the inside of the paper instead of on the front page. In this light, a report by a French press watchdog group criticizing the local coverage of the elections is hardly surprising. Non-Fatah candidates were largely denied access to the government-controlled television and radio stations, it said, and the lack of coverage of the opposition in the newspapers was conspicuous. When Salah Taamari, formerly a close associate of Arafat, provided evidence of PA corruption during his campaign, newspapers simply refused to print what he had to say. The illegitimate nature of the Palestinian elections was not restricted solely to the climate in which they occurred. In the two weeks since the polls have closed, enough accusations of election code violations have been publicized to make the Palestinian Authority admit a measure of impropriety and invalidate certain results. Many such complaints deal with technical issues that might easily have changed the elections' ultimate results. Extra ballots were found outside of polling stations; many ballot boxes "disappeared" outright and were found only after the counting was done. In at least one district, there were more votes counted than voters recorded. Controversy also surrounds changes made to the official list of victors. After initial results had been released, some were revised and a number of previously victorious candidates found out that they had not actually won. Almost all of these changes favored members of Arafat's Fatah party. Two days ago, under heavy police guard, a revote was held in two Gaza Strip districts. The obvious intent of the PA in holding this revote is to show the world that it is correcting the problems encountered in the original round of balloting. This initiative will most likely meet its objectives: gaining world acceptance for the democratic legitimacy of the PA's rule and resolving complaints raised after the election. But in reality, the revote will not change the nature of the contest. Out of more than 1 million registered voters, only 3,000 people are participating, making this far from a full and proper solution to the "irregularities" of the election. It is true that Arafat was by far the most popular choice for the presidency; he would have been elected even in a completely fair contest. Yet Arafat's tremendous popularity does not mean that the Palestinian people want him to be a dictator, an overwhelming president with an ineffectual legislature. As it now stands, the council will have no checks or balances with respect to the executive; whether or not it will have or exert any real power is unclear. While overlooked by most Western journalists, this fact is clear to the Palestinian people. A recent poll indicated that only one-fifth of Palestinians think the balance of power should fall so heavily in favor of the executive. Almost two-thirds want protection of human rights and freedom of the press -- even at the expense of "national security issues." The "irregularities" of the first Palestinian elections are endemic of more significant issues than who is at the helm of the soon-to-be state. Arafat and the Palestinian Authority used their almost unlimited power to ensure that the results of the elections were favorable to them. By doing so, they displayed intense disregard for the practice of true democracy. Spokesmen for the American and Israeli governments and academics the world over insist that the fears of millions -- that there is something wrong with the behavior of the Palestinian Authority -- are simply unfounded. Those who are concerned about the situation within PLO-governed areas are portrayed as paranoid, failing to understand the inevitability of problems that exist within the new state. But this perspective, which often manifests itself in condescending tones toward those branded as on the political "right," needs to address the questions raised above. No true believer in liberty, regardless of his or her specific political allegiance, wants to see the creation of another autocratic police state. An examination of both the content and conduct of the elections, done by the "experts" without their rose-colored glasses, could conclude that the direction the Palestinians are taking might very well be flawed. The creation of a nation of Palestine is right and just for both moral and circumstantial reasons. Yet to accept the way in which this state is being formed as the only possible option is tantamount to allowing the authoritarianism and lack of personal freedom that was rightfully and vehemently condemned throughout the Israeli occupation. The harassment of journalists, termination of communication links and the censure and arrest of political opponents might just be a glimpse at the future -- a future of one-party rule.