How Will Hamas's Electoral Victory Change the Middle East?

By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross

Hamas's victory in Wednesday's parliamentary elections casts grave doubt upon future Israeli-Palestinian relations. Beyond that, pundits are wondering what kind of sea change this could produce in the overall political landscape of the Middle East. As was the case when Ariel Sharon suffered a major stroke earlier this month, there is a large amount of confusion about what the aftermath will hold. But here are a few points worth bearing in mind as we hurtle toward a world in which Hamas will have its chance to govern.

First, the electoral results do not necessarily signal an endorsement of Hamas's terrorist tactics and stated desire for genocide. Many Palestinians clearly did vote for Hamas because of the group's sponsorship of terror and its devotion to the destruction of Israel, but many others were simply fed up with the ruling Fatah party's corruption and utter failure to make the lives of ordinary Palestinians better. Sadly, for those who wanted to see Fatah ousted, Hamas was the only real game in town.

Second, moving beyond this particular election, it's remarkable to witness the broad trend toward democratization in the Middle East. It seems like the majority of Middle Easterners have cast their ballots over the past several months. Witness not only elections in the Palestinian Authority and Iraq, but also Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia (municipal elections). It appears that this trend toward democratization is irreversible, at least in the short term. Certainly the U.S. is in no position, after having pushed democracy as the solution to the region's woes, to put the brakes on the democratization process.

Third, being elected tends to have a moderating effect on radical groups. Observe the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood, which -- while far from an exemplar -- has served in Jordan's parliament since 1987. However, moderation is not a given. It is important that the U.S. and the world community not be myopic, but instead hold Hamas accountable moving forward and not make excuses for them. Particularly unhelpful in this regard are comments such as those by the UN's envoy to the Middle East Alvaro de Soto (as noted by my colleague Andrew Cochran yesterday): "Let's judge the participants in the government by what they do, not by what they have said in the past." Aside from the fact that Hamas's critics are not just judging the group by what it has "said in the past" but rather by the fact that it is literally responsible for hundreds of deaths, positing a sort of "blank slate" for the terrorist group sends a dangerous signal of weakness and moral confusion.

Fourth, one of the biggest long-term dangers from Hamas's electoral victory is that even if the group neither renounces violence nor wavers in its commitment to Israel's destruction, other countries may begin to view Hamas as a legitimate "peace partner" for Israel simply because it won this election. This would be bad for Israel and also bad for the West, because it would mean that we're starting to put the moral blinders back on (that is, if they ever came off in the first place).

Finally, the Bush administration needs to rethink its approach to democracy-building in the Middle East. Thus far, the administration has emphasized voting much more than liberal institution-building. Doing so creates a Catch-22 for both the U.S. and also Middle Eastern voters. The current choice in most countries is between the corrupt status quo regimes and the Islamist opposition. Those who want to vote the current government out of power are forced to vote for open enemies of the United States and its allies in the region. By promoting liberal institutions such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion, we can attempt to move beyond a situation where voters are forced to choose between thieves and killers.

TrackBack