Thomas Edison and Palestinian Democracy

Thomas Edison once said: 'Just because something doesn't do what you want it to do doesn't mean it's useless.'

It's well to keep this in mind when looking at the results of the recent election in Palestine. It didn't do what we wanted. In fact, most commentators seem to be running around saying that the sky has fallen in, and this is what comes from George Bush's intemperate support for democracy NOW in the Middle East.

It was, by all accounts, a reasonably honest election. The results were overwhelming and undisputed - unlike those of, say, Iraq under our tutelage. Yet the results seem horrifying. An organization with its own little army, a terrorist past, and the destruction of Israel as one of its dearest goals could hardly be a good thing. But is it possible that the received wisdom is wrong?

Israel and the United States had been committed to a 'roadmap to peace' with Arafat and Fatah. What did that ever lead to? Ariel Sharon had decided on a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and founded his new party to continue with the rest of the West Bank. Sharon, at one time regarded as the hardest of the hardliners against the Palestinians and a war monger, ended up being the only Israeli who could carry out the dismantle of settlements without tearing Israel apart. His uncompromising toughness against the Palestinians meant that Israelis could trust him not to leave them defenseless.

So what are we faced with now? I am not sure, but it seems that the Hamas election may give cause for the Israelis to continue with their unilateral withdrawal and their wall of separation. Or it could scare the voters into supporting Likud as the best way of dealing with a Hamas led Palestine. It's hard to tell if the latter would be a good move, but the Israelis will be able to take care of themselves for the foreseeable future in either case. The wall may be seen as the only possible solution.

On the Palestinian side, it is murkier still. There are some points I would like time to think about.

1. It seems to be a genuine electoral victory. I am still naive enough to see good in this in its own right while understanding the extreme danger.

2. Hamas may be enjoying a 'catastrophic success' - one it had not looked for. Now that it has to govern it will have to change. It now has all the responsibilities of governing. If it does not give the Palestinians what they were looking for when they ditched Fatah, it will simply lose legitimacy. The glamour of Hamas will rapidly fade and it will become a spent force.

3. Fatah's corruption and incompetence were creating a fiasco and had never been able to work towards peace. It was leading to a failed state torn by factional violence and simple lawlessness that was a danger to all concerned. Such a state could never have been a partner for peace. It never would have been able to make agreements the people would accept, and never would have been able to keep its commitments. Never.

4. Hamas must first govern Gaza. This means allowing Palestinians there an acceptable life. This requires things as basic as garbage service and repaired streets, but it also means not getting involved in a shooting war with the Israelis anytime soon. If Hamas can do this, and it must to stay in power (the armed forces of Fatah aren't going anywhere soon), then it may emerge as a Palestinian government that has the clout to do something daring, something Arafat never could do, something against the grain, if its leadership ever decides that it most do so. They might realize that creating a nation is a better option than dreaming of destroying one.

5. Fatah must change. Its younger members are already taking to the street in anger about the electoral loss. News reports indicate that their anger is directed at the older generation of leaders who failed them so badly. Now they are demanding an end to corruption themselves. If Fatah can reform, it will be a democratic counterbalance to Hamas, which would always have to look over its shoulder for the next election.

Is this too rosey? Perhaps. But who five years ago would have thought that Sharon might end up being the politician most Israelis thought might bring them peace? Each one of the points above indicate change, and each change at least in theory could lead to an improvement. It is now a matter of watching to see which way the changes break.

After all, the elections might not have been useless.