The Confessions Of Hamas Are A Message To The Islamists
28 January 2013
By Osman Mirghani
Islamists must admit that governance is harder than
they imagined
Speaking before the Islamists and Democratic
Governance Conference a few months ago, Khaled Mishal,
head of the Hamas political bureau, acknowledged there
was a difference between opposition and governance,
between imagination and reality, and between being a
critic and a practitioner. He concluded that the
Islamists in general had to admit that governance was
harder than they had first imagined, and this applies
to Hamas as well.
Two days ago Asharq Al-Awsat quoted another leading
figure in Hamas acknowledging that his movement has
failed to "convince the street", whilst Fatah has
succeeded despite what has been described as a
leadership division. In his published comments, Dr.
Yahya Musa, deputy head of the Hamas parliamentary
bloc in the Palestinian Legislative Council, called
upon the Hamas leadership to take note of the large
crowds who gathered a few days ago in Gaza to mark
Fatah's 48th anniversary. He suggested that Hamas
should pause for a moment to review the gap between
the foundations of the movement and the masses of the
Palestinian people, as he put it.
These are not the only examples of Hamas leaders
acknowledging the difficult experience of governance
or mistakes committed by the movement. Others talked
about it after Hamas tried to govern for a year
through the ballot box, then for another five years or
so after carrying out a coup against the Palestinian
Authority and expelling it from Gaza. That day Hamas
became the second Islamist group to monopolize
governance via an armed group, after the Islamic Front
in Sudan which chose a military coup over democracy
more than 23 years ago, and still rules today with
stringent security and repression after accumulating
mountains of mistakes and sins. It is true that Hamas
tried to justify its coup by claiming that it had been
forced to do so, and this has been expressed by a
number of its leaders on several occasions, including
Mishal. He summed up the matter by saying that Hamas'
experience in the Gaza Strip was borne out of
necessity rather than normal conditions. He argued
that his movement was forced into the division [with
the Palestinian Authority] and did not choose it,
claiming that it is not right for there to be an
authority or government in the West Bank and another
one in Gaza, rather there must be one authority and
one government. However, the reality is that Hamas
could not adapt to the pressures of governance and its
requirements, especially in light of the Oslo
commitments, so it decided to escape by masterminding
a coup and monopolizing power over Gaza. As is well
known, the coup did not "solve" Hamas' problems but
rather exacerbated them; it increased pressure on
Hamas and worsened conditions for Gaza and its people,
and the Palestinian cause has suffered because of the
state of division and fragmentation.
Today, after other Islamic movements have come to
power through elections and on the back of the "Arab
Spring" revolutions, the experiences of Sudan and
Hamas serve as a source of many lessons, whether for
the Islamists eager to rule or for their opponents who
fear them and question the extent of their commitment
to democracy and its rules. In both cases [Sudan and
Hamas] the Islamists movements chose to carry out a
coup over democracy and legitimacy, although their
calculations may have been different. They monopolized
power and imposed their approach and vision without
the internal accountability, flexibility and
concessions required by democracy, and without having
to comply with the peaceful transfer of power through
the ballot box if voters wanted a change in the faces,
methods or ideas. The Sudanese Brotherhood and Hamas
both resorted to the excuse of "being forced" [to
seize power] in order to justify their inability to
adapt to democracy, just as "pressure" has become the
peg to hang any failure upon.
It is noteworthy that while Hamas leaders have sought
to portray the rule of the Islamists in Gaza as a
"special case" that cannot be copied or considered an
example after the Arab Spring, the current leaders in
Sudan have said that their rule is "exemplary" and
even tried to delude themselves that they inspired the
Arab Spring in the first place. The reality is that
neither experience can be regarded as an example but
they both pose a problem for the Islamists who are
trying to convince the people of the Arab Spring
states that they are democrats, whilst their opponents
view them with much doubt an suspicion, and others
warn that they are not committed to the peaceful and
democratic transfer of power, nor do they respect the
views of others or accept differences of opinion.
Anyone observing the situation in the Arab Spring
states, particularly Egypt, would sense the gravity of
the concerns felt by many in light of the ongoing
power struggle and the state of division and
fragmentation, and how important it is for the people
to benefit from the experiences of the Brotherhood in
Sudan and Hamas in Gaza, in order to take lessons and
learn from their mistakes. Yet the Brotherhood in
Egypt and their allies from other Islamic movements
have behaved as if they learned nothing from their own
experience and the experience of others, and therefore
in a matter of a few months they lost their electoral
credit and sympathy that enabled them to win the
legislative and presidential elections, showing their
true face and justifying the many who fear them. They
did not keep the promises they made to the people that
they would not seek to monopolize power. Furthermore,
they maneuvered in order to pass their vision of the
constitution, showed extremely low tolerance by
launching sharp attacks on the media and the
judiciary, intimidated protestors and dissidents, and
resorted to the excuses of pressure and conspiracies
to justify their actions. In all that the impression
was cemented that the Islamists – perhaps by virtue of
their organizational upbringing based on the concept
of blind obedience – cannot live with the rules of
democracy and the concepts of pluralism and respect
for the opinions of others.
Islamists in power cannot use the excuses of pressure
or being forced to do something. Hamas would be able
to end the state of division, accept reconciliation
and return to the legitimacy of the ballot box and
peaceful, democratic governance if it was so inclined,
and the Islamists of the "salvation" regime in Sudan
would be able to stop their repression and tyranny and
return the country to democratic rule if they so
wanted. As for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, they
need to reflect on Mishal's words about governance
being more complicated than originally imagined.
It seems the more lessons there are, the less they are
taken into account. Yet if we would only heed the
lessons of others then we would not suffer the crises
and problems that many countries in the region are
witnessing today, with all this blood being spilled
purely so certain groups can cling onto power.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments