New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | January 26, 2006

Michael Young takes a look at the shape of Israeli-Palestinian relations now that democracy-on-the-march has put Hamas in charge.

Comments

|1.26.06 @ 1:40PM|#

For one thing, Israel now nows where it can find 76 Hamas leaders in one building should anything go boom.

|1.26.06 @ 1:52PM|#

Julian,

It is 2006, not 2005 :-)

|1.26.06 @ 1:53PM|#

This might be so blindingly obvious that it's not worth saying, but why does everyone seem to think that democracy is the solution to every political issue? Just because two groups democratically elect governments, that's no reason why they can't still hate each other and try to kill each other. The real issue is freedom, not democracy. The two aren't synonymous. I know everyone likely to read this blog already knows that, so this is just a rant.

|1.26.06 @ 2:19PM|#

Maybe we will witness a "greying" of hamas, even if they still hold wild viewpoints. At least now they can be held to a democratic standard.

|1.26.06 @ 2:39PM|#

The real issue is freedom, not democracy. The two aren't synonymous. I know everyone likely to read this blog already knows that, so this is just a rant.

I'd bet real money that not everyone that's likely to read this blog understands that.

People don't always want what neocons want them to want. What do neocons have to say about the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for instance? So how's the liberal opposition in Iran doing these days? ...Did either of those things have anything to do with the occupation of Iraq?

Yeah, I'd bet real money that not everyone that's likely to read this blog understands what you understand.

|1.26.06 @ 2:54PM|#

David McElroy-

You're right about the crucial distinction. I would say that free, fair, and frequent elections are a very useful mechanism for protecting freedom, but they are hardly sufficient. In some cases they can even be used to elevate bad guys. But they are definitely better than any of the alternatives.

Still, I agree, they are hardly sufficient, and they need to be seen as a means rather than an end.

|1.26.06 @ 3:11PM|#

"But they are definitely better than any of the alternatives."

May I recommend Hans-Herman Hoppe's "Democracy - the God that Failed"? Cliff Notes = propertied monarchies have better incentives to promote liberty than democracies, especially with term limits, where the individuals in government have no incentive to plan beyond x years (their term) and in fact, have an incentive to "get it (pork) while they can."

"Still, I agree, they are hardly sufficient, and they need to be seen as a means rather than an end."

Elections are merely a way of demonstrating the values of a background culture, and then, only when the electorate is relatively homogenous. If the culture doesn't value individual rights, etc., elections won't create them out of thin air. And in fact, when you look at African democracies, you can see a possible future for Iraq - having someone from your tribe or clan or whatever win the election is a life or death matter, as the election of someone from say, the Tutsis, will mean that they will (at best) rob you to shower pork on their tribe.

Even here, as our culture becomes more heterogeneous, you can start to see the same cracks - "red state" and "blue state".

So yes, they are a means. But they are useless unless the culture already contains the relevant values.

|1.26.06 @ 3:13PM|#

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy just doesn't work.

|1.26.06 @ 3:25PM|#

"I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy just doesn't work."

Iraq would be far better off with free markets than democracy. Besides, who is the United States to talk about spreading freedom? We've got three quarters of a million people sitting in jail for smoking pot, and the government runs our schools. Oh where's that island.

|1.26.06 @ 3:39PM|#

quasibill, thanks for the book recommendation. I just ordered a copy from Amazon. It looks very interesting.

On the more basic question, how many people have stopped to consider the question of whether democracy is any more moral than monarchy or some form of oligarchy? What is magic about a majority? And why are they allowed to dictate to the minority? Those aren't questions I used to think about much -- and they're certainly questions I don't bring up much with other people -- because questioning such things is akin to heresy in the modern civic church. On the positive side, freedom and democracy tend to correlate, but there's no reason they have to, IMO.

Peter K.|1.26.06 @ 3:45PM|#

The obvious thing that can be said for democracy and elections is that one can "throw the bums out," which is what the Palestinians did to the often corrupt Fatah party.

When you get a nasty monarch or oligarchical clique, you're stuck with them. What's so difficult to undestand about that?

fyodor|1.26.06 @ 3:49PM|#

In case I don't have time to read the book, mind telling me what the hell IS a "propertied monarchy"? I googled the term and there were two results. The first was ANOTHER Hit & Run post by quasibill, and the other was a blog comment by a Curtis Doolittle (another name for quasibill?), and while both touted propertied monarchies' superiority (or at least equality) to democracy, neither explained what it was.

|1.26.06 @ 3:53PM|#

Democracy (or democratic republicanism) is better than a hereditary monarchy because the monarch might not be very good a ruling and could be quite good at something else.

I think more important is a fluid society, where people can rise and fall depending one their abilities. It�s a safety value to keep the smart/ambitious poor from revolting, and it does a better job of putting qualified people into positions of power.

I wonder if the ease of US wins in Iraq and Israeli wins versus Arab states is due less to individual troops and more to Iraq and the Arab states having the brother in law of the king in charge of the army. While it keeps the army "in the family" during peacetime, I bet there's a lot less competition that at West Point or at the Israeli military college.

|1.26.06 @ 4:17PM|#

"mind telling me what the hell IS a "propertied monarchy"? "

Well, it's somewhat of a "term of art", so it's hard to give a succinct definition. But the essential part is that the monarch has an "ownership" right to certain revenue streams (not always taxes in the way we think of them) that arise from the geographic area. This right is his (or hers) so long as the people don't revolt and depose him or her. Hence, the monarch has an incentive to maximize those streams by allowing as much free trade as possible. The monarch also generally has an incentive to be permissive in rule-making, as the people don't have any illusions that the government is "of the people," and therefore the monarch can't anger them too much, or they just revolt (which, again, is more likely given that there is none of this grand illusion that "we, the people" are the government". Finally, propertied monarchs of this sort tend to be less belligerent towards other nations, because their property tends to decrease in value during wars, not increase.

The historical example is the British monarchy before the "long parliament."

Of course, I'll give the disclaimer that I'm AnCap, so I have no desire to live under a monarch, either, but it is at least debatable that democracies are in some way the best possible form of state.

|1.26.06 @ 4:18PM|#

Democracy, when coupled with a limited state, is indeed a wonderful thing. As we see in this country, however, such a coupling is extremely hard, if not impossible to maintain.

I favor democracy in the Middle East, however, in order to find out whether most of the people there wish to kill me. If the answer is "no", then a majority with sufficient powers gained through democratic processes can stop the minority which is now pursuing that course. If the answer is "yes", then I want to know as soon as possible, all the better to relatively quickly take whatever ruthless measures are needed to stop them as efficiently as possible. Clarity is usually a very positive attribute when contemplating violence.

As to the Israelis, for all the negative aspects of yesterday's outcome, they will soon have greater clarity as to how best to deal with their hostile neighbors, and what the costs are likely to be, and their hostile neighbors will have greater clarity as to the cost of trying to eliminate Israel. There's a chance such clarity will cause some re-evaluatioin of underlying premises. Of course, there's a chance it won't as well, and that things will end quite horribly. Guess we'll find out.

|1.26.06 @ 4:19PM|#

Oh, and I am not Curtis Doolittle.

I have seen him post before, but I don't remember when. As far as I know, I have only posted under this alias here (and on yahoo, when I posted there as well).

|1.26.06 @ 4:53PM|#

I'm all for democracy. Everyone should have the opportunity to fire their political leaders periodically.

...but I find the suggestion that democracy spreads from nation to nation like a virus disputable. I find the suggestion that democracy, in all places and at all times, will always produce a net benefit to American security disputable.

...and I find the suggestion that the occupation of Iraq will produce a democracy that will spread from nation to nation like a virus, producing a net benefit to the security of the United States entirely disputable.

|1.26.06 @ 5:22PM|#

"I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy just doesn't work."

You only say that because you've never known anything other than democracy and, more important, unimaginable freedom: to do what you want, think what you want, go where you want, say what you want (and shout it from the rooftops or publish it and get others to join your movement if you have one), live where you want, eat what you want, dress how you want, worship (or not) as you want. I think you get my point.

People in police states or theocracies or under authoritarian regimes live in perpetual fear: of the police, the authorities, their bosses, their colleagues, and their neighbors (and sometimes their children), who might (in order to gain some privilege) denounce them to the authorities at any moment.

I think you get this point, too. But unless you have actually done the hard work of trying to imagine what daily life might be like for the millions of politically oppressed people across the globe who are not as lucky as you--and there are any number of books and some movies that will give you a pretty good idea--I wouldn't be so hasty to say democracy doesn't work.

Democracy isn't a magic bullet.
Representative government (perhaps a better term for the sake of our argument), however, has a sobering effect on people. When they realize that they are responsible for their own decisions (or indecision), in the long run they tend to make more rational (and fairer) decisions: because they will have to live with the consequences.

I would venture to say that in the long run--if they don't immediately get involved in a bloody gang war with Fatah and Islamic Jihad etc.--Hamas's victory in the elections may have a sobering effect on its leaders. They're at bat now. Their people will want results, and fast.

|1.26.06 @ 5:28PM|#

Um, hepzeeba, I think that was a "Simpsons" quote made in jest.

|1.26.06 @ 5:33PM|#

Am I the only one who recognizes Kent Brockman for who he really is?

I too welcome our new insect overlords...

fyodor|1.26.06 @ 5:44PM|#

quasibill,

The historical example is the British monarchy before the "long parliament."

Can you say what period of time that was?

it is at least debatable that democracies are in some way the best possible form of state.

Fine, debate away. Seems like making a purely academic point is your main purpose anyway.

Regarding the topic at hand, I would venture to say that while democracy is clearly no panacea, there is perhaps reason to believe that it is at least likely to be a step in the right direction. I know the myth that no two democracies have ever gone to war against each other is just that, a myth, but still, Europe sure seems like a more peaceful place when it's full of democracies, and it sure ain't because they're absolutists on economic freedom! I'm no historian, but I'd venture to guess the track record of democracies regarding peaceful coexistence with other is at least pretty decent compared to the alternatives.

But then, democracy is kind of being sold as a panacea, which it clearly is not. Even if it were, you'd have to hold onto it, and who know if that will even happen in Palestine or Iraq. Palestine is a fairly unique situation, and there's probably even less reason to believe democracy will usher in cooperation than elsewhere, since the violence has not been the result of an elite group using it to further interests unique to its clan. Could just as well be that the elite are more interested in peace with Israel than the society at large. And of course the situation is hardly purely benign on the other side either...

Sigh, we shall see.

|1.26.06 @ 5:53PM|#

mmmmmm!
I love hamas in my pita bread.

I know, I know...

That was just falafel.

R C Dean|1.26.06 @ 5:53PM|#

May I recommend Hans-Herman Hoppe's "Democracy - the God that Failed"?

gaius, is that you?

|1.26.06 @ 6:05PM|#

"Can you say what period of time that was?"

Dangit - you caught me. No, I'm not that strong a student of British history that the dates stay in my head. I can look it up, but I don't have the time right now. I just know that the "long parliament" was the beginning of the end of the monarchy, and that incidentally, it was also the beginning of one of the most warlike periods of British history...

"I'm no historian, but I'd venture to guess the track record of democracies regarding peaceful coexistence with other is at least pretty decent compared to the alternatives."

Actually, the book makes a pretty good case that the transition to democracy in Britain led to more war, not less. Again, like all history, I'm sure you can get people to debate on cause/effect and particulars, but, again, my point was mostly to point out that the meme "democracy is most conducive to liberty and peace" is not a given.

And one reason why Europe is fairly peaceful today is the fact that WWI (mostly, IMO), and WWII were fought in their backyard, as well as the nuclear annihilation that hung over them during the cold war, taught them the lessons of peace better than anything else.

|1.26.06 @ 6:29PM|#

So now we've all come around to the point that Moshe Dayan made back in the late 70's: the Israelis can't stay on the West Bank as long as the Palestinians are there, and once the settlements are built, they can't leave. They have painted themselves into a political corner and, if the US had been a true friend and ally, we would have leaned on them to stop in the early 80's.

I will now stand still so John can accuse me of anti-Semitism.

Tim Cavanaugh|1.26.06 @ 6:54PM|#

gaius, is that you?

Where is gaius, anyway? I haven't seen him in months.

|1.26.06 @ 6:56PM|#

I missed that episode, ChrisO. Too busy doing my Earnest School (TM) homework, I guess.

The topic is democracy, no?

I addressed myself to Mr., ahem, Brockman's comment rather than, say, Mr. Shultz's ("People don't always want what neocons want them to want") because Mr. Brockman was clearer in his meaning: that democracy is not all that it's cracked up to be.

That point of view has seen a lot of ink, on this blog and in the wider media.

I disagree.

|1.26.06 @ 7:10PM|#

Where is gaius, anyway?

You can always find him here.

joshua corning|1.26.06 @ 7:17PM|#

One thing is certian...the people in power in palistine are capable of stopping attacks on israel.


Hey john am i an anti-semite now?

|1.26.06 @ 7:21PM|#

On terrorists winning elections in Palestine:

Is it really a shock that when the main issue is independence from Israeli rule, the winners of the election will be the ones who most violently oppose Israel? First, the PLO leader, then Hamas.

Isn't it pretty common that when a country secedes or wins a war of independence or whatever that the election winners are those who fought in the revolution? Hell, our first President was a General.

Now, before anybody gets upset, I'm not suggesting a moral equivalence between George Washington and Hamas. I'm just saying that he who fights the occupying power has a much better chance at the ballot box.

Is this a good sign? No. But neither is it a surprise. And maybe it means that the Palestinians aren't irredeemable terrorist sympathizers, but are in fact pretty much like anybody else.

|1.26.06 @ 7:30PM|#

This point:

"Representative government (perhaps a better term for the sake of our argument), however, has a sobering effect on people."

Is absolutely backwards. If anything, it emboldens people to do things that they would never dare if they had to risk their own fortunes or hides. See the current cabal and its willingness to fight in a war when given the chance vs. its willingness to engage in a war of choice. And just so you don't confuse me with a democrat, the same is true of Clinton. It's also why there is so much pork - it's not their money that they spend, so they have no problem spending away.

"When they realize that they are responsible for their own decisions (or indecision), in the long run they tend to make more rational (and fairer) decisions: because they will have to live with the consequences."

That's true of a free market, but not a representative democracy - because politicians are definitely NOT individually responsible for their decisions - we, the taxpayer are. Especially when you consider that my single vote has a tiny impact on only 1/50 of the senate, and even less of the House, yet every member of those bodies gets a vote on how much I get taxed, and how to spend my money. Senator "Bridges to Nowhere" is in no way responsible for how he spends my money.

|1.26.06 @ 7:33PM|#

As far as Palestine, I am extremely curious how the admin handles this now - they're going to have a hard time labelling Hamas "terrorist", as they've spent a LOT of time excepting anything an elected government does from the definition of terrorism (for obvious reasons).

The spin is going to make "depends on what the meaning of "is" is" look like a direct statement.

|1.26.06 @ 8:43PM|#

Bush's SOTU speech should address the following question:

HOW DO WE MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FROM DEMOCRACY?

Especially the ones we are helping to create.

|1.26.06 @ 8:51PM|#

The Senate exiled Gaius for his conspiracies against the Republic.

That was the official charge, at least. Many of the Senators felt he was a bit of a windbag.

QFMC cos. V

|1.26.06 @ 9:43PM|#

As far as Palestine, I am extremely curious how the admin handles this now - they're going to have a hard time labelling Hamas "terrorist", as they've spent a LOT of time excepting anything an elected government does from the definition of terrorism (for obvious reasons).

The spin is going to make "depends on what the meaning of "is" is" look like a direct statement.

and

HOW DO WE MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FROM DEMOCRACY?

how are you guys so sure that this is not what Bush wanted?

So john, now am I an anti-semite?

|1.26.06 @ 11:29PM|#

I haven't heard anyone on Fox News waxing about the wonders of democracy in Gaza. I'm not holding my breath. Well, I am, actually, but not because of that.

|1.27.06 @ 3:24AM|#

Even here, as our culture becomes more heterogeneous, you can start to see the same cracks - "red state" and "blue state".

We were never homogeneous. Remember the Civil War? We can real close to having it right after the Revolutionary War.

Americans have been divided, pretty close to right down the middle, since the beginning.


On the positive side, freedom and democracy tend to correlate, but there's no reason they have to, IMO.

That's only a dream.

Remember the war on drugs? Lots of people vote for that here in the good old USA.

The freedom to vote is the freedom to vote away your freedom. This is the most likely ultimate outcome, if the British are any example.

Give the people this "ultimate power", and what ultimately wins is their conscience. Because people should be good and they should do good things, and they should take care of each other don't you know.

What democracy doesn't kill directly in this way, is killed by parasitic corruption which infests any and all living arrangements.

What we really need is a reset button, a way to reboot the whole thing when it goes in the ditch.

Nobody has yet invented a working government reset button (and no, voting is not a reset button -- look around).


I favor democracy in the Middle East, however,

Unfortunately, 8 out 10 people in the Middle East have no idea what they really favor either. But they have lots of feelings about it.

Sound familiar?

|1.27.06 @ 3:42AM|#

btw, I can't say that I know anyone who does know what is good for them. But at least we've come to understand the motivation behind things like Plato's Republic (a frightening vision in its own right, inspired in large part by admiration of the success of Sparta's mind control society).

Any system you can invent will decay over time. We really do need to invent a government reboot button.

Dave W.|1.27.06 @ 8:22AM|#

What T. said!

|1.27.06 @ 8:42AM|#

"Last Saturday, The Washington Post published an article on how an office of the U.S. Agency for International Development had spent some $2 million to increase the popularity of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) in the period leading up to the legislative elections that took place yesterday in the West Bank and Gaza."

They probably shouldn't have spent the money hiring Bob Shrum.

|1.27.06 @ 10:49AM|#

This situation will turn Bush into Mr. Bojangles. The neocons will have to dance fancy around this land mine. They tout DEMOCRACY as the holy grail that will solve all the problems in the world. Now they are forced to deny the validity of a free and open election in Palestine. SO democracy only works if the people elect the puppets desired by the Bushites. What kind of message does this send to the people of Iraq? I think it is clear to the Iraqis that we have replaced one despot with another (GWB). "DEMOCRACY" is simply a smoke screen to mask our intentions of establishing permanent military bases in the Middle East and to control the extraction of petroleum resources.

Peter K.|1.27.06 @ 12:12PM|#

Why hasn't anybody commented on the fact that Bush *allowed* Hamas to take part in the election against the wishes of Sharon, the Israelis and even the Fatah Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei? Maybe he's serious about democracy in the Middle East after all... Heaven forbid! I'll grant you Sistani and the Shiites forced elections on Bush in Iraq, but still.

Now they are forced to deny the validity of a free and open election in Palestine.

Like how Democrats denied the validity of the 2000 election decided by a conservative Supreme court?

|1.27.06 @ 12:49PM|#

QuasiBill: The "long parliament" was called by Charles I around 1640 or so because he needed to raise money to deal with some recalcitrant Scots, among other things. Once called, the Parliament refused to allow itself to be disbanded, challenged the King, and civil war resulted. The Parliament lasted throughout the civil war and during Cromwell's "Republic" (through the 1650's).

I question whether the actions of Parliament during the period could properly be characterized as "democratic", though.

|1.27.06 @ 1:40PM|#

Peter K.,

Is an election decided by the voting public in Palestine really "like" an election decided by a "conservative Supreme Court," when the court overturns the majority's vote?

Peter K.|1.27.06 @ 2:56PM|#

My point is that just because Bush doesn't like the outcome of a certain election, doesn't mean he's against elections per se. I mean, Democrats aren't necessarily against democracy and elections just because they didn't like the outcome of the 2000 election, right?

I don't really have a problem with the 2000 outcome. If Repubs had had the Florida Supreme Court and Dems had the US Supreme Court, it would have went the other way and Repubs would now be making the same points you and people who agree with you do.

I kinda wish Kerry won the electoral vote but not the popular vote.

|1.27.06 @ 3:48PM|#

Ah, now I see, Peter K. Yes, you are correct about disliking a result and disliking elections.

I also wanted Kerry to lose the popular vote and win the Electoral College. If that had happened twice in a row, with a different party screwed each time, we might have actually gotten rid of the corrupt institution.

|1.27.06 @ 7:17PM|#

No, joe, if Kerry had won the electoral vote and lost the popular vote the GOP Congress would have passed some law that is ostensibly to prevent voting fraud but in practice would make voting more complicated for eligible citizens from certain locales and demographic backgrounds.