By Osama El-Sherif
EHUD BARAK'S victory in the Israeli elections should not be a reason for Arab celebration. Israeli voters got rid of Netanyahu mainly because of his personality and divisive policies. Netanyahu will go down in Israeli history as the man who Americanized Israeli politics. His demagogic tactics, negative campaign rhetoric and controversial policies have changed the rules of the Israeli political game forever. His legacy will undoubtedly be a subject for debate by Israel's political pundits for some time to come.
As one Israeli commentator aptly put it, the 1999 elections were not about Barak's victory as much as they were about Netanyahu's defeat. Nevertheless, Israeli voters elected a man who could be as intransigent as his predecessor.
Barak is a vintage product of the Israeli military establishment. He is the most decorated Israeli general in Israel's history. He personally gunned down Palestinian leaders and waged war against the Arabs. He voted against the Oslo accords and objected to the policies of his mentor Yitzhak Rabin.
Right after his win he made it clear that he will not bring the future of Jerusalem into the negotiations nor will he allow the Palestinians to take full control of the Occupied Territories.
The Arabs, on the other hand, should stop and think about the meaning of the Israeli elections. Israel went to the polls three times since the launch of the Madrid peace process in 1991. And each time they elected a different leader with different approach to peace with the Arabs.
The Arabs, meanwhile, paused and observed Israeli democracy in progress. As a rule Israeli elections underline a major characteristic of the Arab-Israeli conflict. They focus on the political dimension of the struggle between two opposite political systems; a western style democracy on the one hand, and a hybrid of feudal and single-party political set ups on the other.
Israel's democracy, in spite of its flaws and contradictions, is one important element in the Arab-Israeli conflict, one that we as Arabs often make the mistake of ignoring or even rejecting. There is no doubt that the Israeli political system, which claims to derive its principles from European and American political traditions, remains one of the important assets in Israel's close alliance with the United States.
Israel has always boasted that it is the only true democracy in the Middle East. Such perception has served its interests well. At one stage of the conflict, Israel was viewed an oasis of democracy fighting for its survival in a desert of dictatorships and authoritarian regimes.
For a long time, since the end of the Second World War and the outbreak of the first Arab-Israeli war, the Arabs believed that their struggle against Zionism was simply one of right against wrong and justice against injustice. Ironically, justice had nothing to do with the struggle.
On the contrary, the Palestinian issue remains one of the most shameful in the history of the United Nations and its Security Council. To this day, Israel stands out as the only UN member state which refuses to abide by UN resolutions and is in perpetual violation of international laws and conventions. It continues to evade international sanctions and censure even when NATO leaders find excuses to unleash their firepower against an outlaw state like Serbia or when British and US aircraft continue to bomb Iraqi cities under the thin guise of Security Council mandate.
Israel's democratic traditions fail to reach areas and peoples under its occupation. Its human rights record is at par with the worst forms of dictatorship and military juntas the world has ever known. In fact its democracy is exclusive. Even within the Israeli society there are examples of discrimination and disenfranchisement. But Israel is a modern state, with thriving political, economic and social institutions, political parties, free press and independent judiciary.
It is also a country that has fought five major wars with its Arab neighbors. What if Israel's enemies were also democratic states with elected governments? Could the outcome of history be different? It would be ludicrous to discount such questions as rhetorical.
Israel or no Israel, the Arab world will have to face the fact that when it comes to political, economic and social reforms it is facing a growing challenge. Which brings us to our uphill struggle with democracy; an issue that is forcing itself on the national agenda in spite of consistent attempts to stifle it.
Arab transition to democracy has been slow and frustrating. But there are signs and they are good signs. For instance, Kuwait's decision to give women the right to vote, in few years, must be welcomed as an important watershed for Arab Gulf women. Kuwait has the Gulf's only elected parliament and a relatively free press. Qatar made history recently by holding the first municipal elections where women were also allowed to run for public office and vote. In Saudi Arabia there are more voices calling for more public participation in local government.
These are small but important steps on the long road towards some form of public participation in government. But we are still far off from arriving to a western style democracy in the Arab world. Nor should that necessarily be the ultimate objective.
Algeria's short-lived experiment with democracy and its bloody outcome is haunting most conservative Arab governments. Secularists too fear a defeat at the ballot box by conservative Islamists. Ironically, many western countries share their fear and may tend to work against full democratization in the Arab world if the outcome would be to hand in power to Islamist-led governments.
In countries where elected parliaments exist, like Egypt and Jordan, there are still many issues that make the full transition towards democracy slow and cumbersome. Lebanon has made an important leap forward in recent years and in spite of its political realities it has managed to set itself apart from many Arab states. Jordan is still struggling towards the goal of a constitutional government but its transition seems to be resuming after a period of hesitation.
As we approach the beginning of the third millennium, the overwhelming majority of Arabs continue to live in non-democratic states governed by unelected officials and governments. Democracy should not be an alternative but a necessity and not only because of the challenge posed by Israel but because of our survival in a world heading quickly towards globalization and openness. Arab style democracy will only come as a result of a political evolution that may take years to accomplish.