Despite the obstacles, the unwillingness of the PLO to let go, and Western and Israeli indifference, a democratic Palestinian state is both desirable and possible.
William B. Quandt is a Senior Fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution.
A Palestinian state is slowly being born. It will not necessarily look like other states. It will probably not be fully independent. And it will only emerge after a carefully controlled transitional period. Nevertheless, the process of state formation has begun, and the Gaza-Jericho agreement is the first step.
Among the many unanswered questions about this state in the making is whether or not it will be democratic. Israelis have shown little interest in this crucial issue. This is a strange posture for citizens of a democracy to adopt, but it stems from Israel’s primary concern with its own security and widespread skepticism among Israelis about the possibility of democracy anywhere in the Arab world. Moreover, Israeli leaders have found certain advantages in negotiating with Arab dictators, who are not accountable to the vagaries of public opinion. Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat probably would not have made his famous journey to Jerusalem in November 1977 if he had been forced to consult the Egyptian public. Negotiations with Syria’s Hafez al-Assad or Jordan’s King Hussein would not be any easier if democratic governments reigned in either country. In short, few Israelis have concluded that more democracy would cure the confusion that often seems to govern Palestinian politics.
THE CASE FOR DEMOCRACY
Among Palestinians, however, interest in democracy is growing. According to some polls, about three-fourths of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza favor holding elections for a governing authority during the interim period, while only ten percent want the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to appoint the government.
Palestinians care about democracy for several reasons. To put it bluntly, they have had bad experiences with authoritarian Arab regimes. Whether one thinks of Nasser’s Egypt, Assad’s Syria or Saddam’s Iraq, Palestinians have numerous stories of their mistreatment by arbitrary, nondemocratic governments. These memories predispose many Palestinians to think that their own government should avoid the pitfalls of one-man rule.
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
The rush of notable events set into motion by the uprising nearly two years ago of Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza is impressive. Two decades of near tranquility in Israel's occupied territories were shattered. The intifadeh provoked Jordan's King Hussein to relinquish his claims to the West Bank, which his grandfather had annexed in 1951. It led the Palestine Liberation Organization to declare Palestinian independence, to renounce terrorism and to accept Israel's right to exist, which in turn paved the way for the diplomatic dialogue between the United States and the PLO. Finally, in Israel, it led the Likud-Labor coalition to adopt an initiative for elections in the occupied territories for transitional self-rule to be followed by negotiations on their final status. Opponents on all sides rallied in an effort to cripple Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's initiative. These events, and more, were crammed into a short period of time, creating a sense of unparalleled passion and fluidity, of fears among some and euphoria among others.
Hamas is facing increasing threats from its more extremist and Islamist rivals. Will the rule of Palestinian nationalism hold in Gaza?
For better or worse, this week’s unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas would never have occurred had the ongoing Arab uprisings not changed both parties’ political fortunes.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.