Publication
Omar Shaban Ismail · Sama News Agency · 2011
Omar Shaban calls for replacing Prime Minister Dr. Salam Fayyad after four years in office, not as a verdict on his performance but to entrench the rotation of power, citing Charles de Gaulle and David Ben-Gurion stepping down after their achievements. He argues that a change would show the international community a will to renew and would dispel the impression that Fayyad's presence is a condition for international funding, which stems from the first donors' conference in Washington in October 1993 and is tied to the Authority's political function, handled by the presidency, rather than to individuals. In light of the Arab revolutions, he urges rotation across all institutions, from the negotiations department led by Saeb Erekat for 18 years to the Investment Fund, the Monetary Authority and the political factions.
Omar Shaban, March 2011: replacing PM Salam Fayyad would affirm the rotation of power; donor funding depends on the PA’s role, not on individuals.
At the outset, I would like to note that this article does not aim to evaluate Dr. Salam Fayyad, either his program or his person. Rather, it aims to stress the necessity of strengthening the principle of the rotation of power and changing individuals, proceeding from the principle that “remaining in power and administration for long periods suppresses the signs of positive change and deprives any society of trying new experiences.”
A person’s departure from office, regardless of the level of performance, is a natural tradition in true democracies. A person leaving office and being replaced does not necessarily mean that his performance was unsatisfactory; quite the contrary. There are many examples in history in which great figures who served their countries and peoples left office without their departure having any negative effect on their homelands. Rather, this made room for new blood and new expertise. Just as the arrival of Dr. Salam Fayyad marked a new stage in Palestinian administrative and political work, his departure at this stage should also be read simply within this context. It is sufficient here to mention Charles de Gaulle, the leader of the French struggle against the Nazi occupation, who resigned from his post after liberating France, and David Ben-Gurion, who led the Zionist movement and achieved its goals by laying the foundations of the Israeli state; he submitted his resignation after the establishment of the state and went to his farm in the Negev to encourage Israelis to settle and develop the desert.
Dr. Salam Fayyad, Prime Minister for the past four years, represents a phase that includes many positives and negatives. With due appreciation for him and his role, he must be changed as Prime Minister for several reasons, the most important of which are:
· Changing the Prime Minister would send a message to the international community that we possess the will to change, that “personalization” has no place in the Palestinian political lexicon, and that if the movement for change in the Arab world is taking place through blood and fire, the opposite is happening in Palestine, represented by the peaceful and civilized rotation of power and senior positions within it, without any manifestation of clinging to office and the chair and remaining in it for a long time.
· An impression has arisen among both the international and local communities that the presence of Dr. Fayyad in the position of Prime Minister is a condition for the continuation of international funding. This in itself is inaccurate, and it harms the Palestinian people and their political system, which under no circumstances should be tied to specific individuals.
· Change breathes life into national and administrative institutions, and gives hope for change to the Palestinian people, more than half of whom are youth. It will also affirm the Palestinian people’s belief in the benefits of the rotation of power and in strengthening the values of accountability and evaluation, and that the homeland is greater than individuals, no matter how great they may be. Some may argue that changing Dr. Salam Fayyad would lead to the cutoff of international funding to the Palestinian National Authority, but this is a major mistake made by many. International funding for the Palestinian National Authority is the product of the first donors’ conference held in October 1993 in the American capital, Washington, with the participation of a number of international bodies, foremost among them the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. International funding came to enable the new-born entity, “the Palestinian Authority,” to play its role in promoting a culture of peace among Palestinians, as stipulated in the conference’s recommendations. The international community will never allow 1) the collapse of the Authority, because it is an international demand, and 2) the cessation of support for it, so that it can fulfill its function.
The functional division within the Authority between the institutions of the presidency and the government confirms that the political program of the Authority falls within the jurisdiction of the institution of the presidency. It therefore bears the burden of meeting the requirements of the international community in order to ensure the continuation of its political and financial support, while the government’s role remains confined to managing the day-to-day and developmental affairs of Palestinian society.
Therefore, international funding for the Authority is fundamentally linked to the extent to which it performs its function, that is, to its political program, regardless of who leads it. The international community did not stop supporting the Authority during the era of the late President Arafat except when it realized that the Palestinian Authority under his leadership had not adhered politically to what was expected of it. This was despite numerous international reports confirming the extensive existence of corruption during that period. Nevertheless, international funding continued without hesitation until the contradiction emerged at the political level between the orientations of the Palestinian Authority and the expectations of the international community, whereupon the international community decided to get rid of Yasser Arafat while keeping the Palestinian Authority.
The international community’s talk about transparency and corruption is neither real nor sincere; rather, it is meant to throw dust in the eyes and to cover up other objectives, and to employ it as a sword raised, when needed, over the neck of the Authority and the Palestinian people. It is worth noting here that this same international community has not uttered a word about any suspicion of corruption over the past four years, despite the existence of numerous indications of it. The organized and massive plundering of the wealth of the Arab world and the Third World, exposed in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, could not have taken place without cover from Western society and its banks, which accepted and facilitated the smuggling of hundreds of billions from the South to the North.
The revolutions that swept, and continue to sweep, the Arab region have proven that change is an inevitability from which there is no escape. The peoples in revolt, burdened by stagnation and the absence of change, can no longer tolerate selfish monopolization of positions and centers of power. The Arab revolutions have constituted a dividing line between a past of arbitrariness in the use and monopolization of power and a present and future in which the democratic and civilized rotation of power becomes the fundamental characteristic of the Arab political system.
The Palestinian reality cannot in any way be separated from the broader Arab reality; the winds of change will blow into Palestine sooner or later. For that reason, those in the centers of Palestinian decision-making must realize the importance and seriousness of what is happening around them, and must hasten to take steps that strengthen the principle of the rotation of powers and positions and end manifestations of monopolizing posts and remaining in them.
This applies to everyone, whether the presidency, the prime ministership, the ministers themselves, or the Negotiations Affairs Department led by Saeb Erekat for 18 years, which has been afflicted by slackness, bloating, negligence, and futility; and in the Palestine Investment Fund, the Palestine Monetary Authority, all official and semi-official institutions, as well as the Palestinian political forces, which have grown very old and entered the stage of death years ago, and whose leaders have occupied their positions since before Gaddafi came to power. What Gaddafi is doing in the form of hysterical killing of his people and insane plundering of his country’s resources provides certain proof of the danger of a leader becoming stuck to the chair.
Good performance by a president, manager, or leader does not mean keeping him in place and not changing him. Good performance is a duty and a responsibility for every person in a decision-making position. Therefore, we must change our concepts regarding how we deal with those above us among leaders and presidents. These people, like any employee of the state, receive their salaries and pensions in return for performing well, and they too are subject to questioning, accountability, and change... Change is the constant principle, while individuals are the changing elements.
Topic: Palestinian Politics — Salam Fayyad · rotation of power · donor funding · Arab Spring — Text © Sama News Agency — archived here with attribution to the source. — Original source