I watched an interview last night with former PA PM Salam Fayyad, who has formed his own list, Together We Can. Since quitting as prime minister in 2013 Fayyad has had a distinguished academic career in the US, including Havard, the Brookings Institute and as a visiting professor at Princeton University.
The name of his list has echoes of Obama's 'Yes We can' mantra, and he explains its relevance to Palestine today:
“What is needed to face the current challenges is a national unity government in which we have all sectors of the Palestinian political landscape and not a majority government.”
In addition to his support for a unity government, Fayyad also called for a much stronger stand for Palestinian rights with the United States and the international community.
“We must go back to the beginnings, including to the PLO positions before the 1988 Palestinian peace initiative. Palestinians must insist that Israel recognise the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination. This is a logical request that can be defended internationally, and we can use it to gain the global support of those who support peace, justice and equality.”
By referring to the pre-1988 position, Fayyad is highlighting one of the main long-standing fissures in Fatah and the PLO. Peace activist Mohammed Mossad hinted at the same thing when he referred to 'outsiders', which is how the local PLO members regarded the 'Tunisians' who came in and took over with Yasser Arafat, and endorsed a position which eventually led to the Oslo Accords..
"To restore full agency in our quest for freedom and dignity, it is time to rethink the 1988 peace initiative - specifically, the willingness to accept a Palestinian state on 22% of historic Palestine, under a so-called “two state solution. Instead, we must propose an alternative way forward that could garner broad-based Palestinian support. What the Palestinian people desperately need is a clear statement — a definition upon which we can legitimately pursue our national aspirations. I believe a broad Palestinian national consensus can be built upon a platform committing to either of two options.
The first is anchored on the model of a single state, whose constitution provides for full equality for all of its citizens, and without any discrimination on any basis whatsoever. The second is an agreed two-state solution — but only with an independent and fully sovereign Palestinian state on the entire territory occupied by Israel in 1967, including East Jerusalem.
In the meantime, we should spare no effort to begin the process of reunifying our polity and rebuilding and strengthening our institutions - an especially demanding undertaking after years of fracture and separation. We need an agenda that empowers us to become the masters of our own destiny. Once we converge on a policy statement built on the options above, we can begin piecing together that agenda.
That is all imminently possible if our leadership signals its willingness to lead on the strength of such a vision. The choice at this moment is ours to make. Once we decide to act, all—near and afar—will begin to realise that our will has not been broken, and that it will never be."
He also dismissed the restraints that the Quartet (the EU, Russia, the UN and the US) imposes on electoral nominees. This is a reference to the principles laid out by the Quartet in their 'road map' for peace: “It is the view of the Quartet that all members of a future Palestinian Government must be committed to non-violence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the Road Map.”
Fayyad seems to be offering an olive branch to Hamas because they and some other participants in the election disagree with one or more of those principles but are nonetheless allowed to run by paying lip service to the principles, as per the PA's letter to President Biden I mentioned on 15/3.
What are his strengths?
1. Fayyad has the advantage of being neither a corrupt Fatah official or Hamas. Supporters hope he will be able to capture the votes of those who are not happy with both those parties. Even when he was prime minister, he was not a Fatah member. The Tunisians accepted into service only locals who bought into the Fatah agenda, and saw Fayyad as an outsider who did not want to endorse the PLO agenda.
2. The entry of Fayyad into the elections provides an important alternative for voters who are searching for an someone who has clean hands as opposed to the major factions that have dominated the political scene. During his time in government he took on the patronage network upon which Fatah had thrived for decades.
3. Known and respected internationally from his time at the IMF, in government, and in the US.
4. During his time in government he was crucial to the PA's attempts to build a functioning state, to the extent that the policy became known as Fayyadism.
The policies were based on the simple but all-too-rare notion that a leader's legitimacy should be based not on slogans or rejectionism, personality cults or security services, but on delivering transparent, accountable administration and services. He was at the heart of a raft of political and economic reforms central to the PA's state-building agenda, which was intended to secure Palestinian national liberation through the pursuit of domestic reforms and a political plan focused on peaceful institution building - to have the institutions up and running before sovereignty, thus having a proven record of building and maintaining these institutions, as well as honouring signed agreements.
What are his weaknesses?
1. That same period as PM, 2007-13. He is seen as someone who worked for Abbas and executed his economic and draconian security policies. Unfortunately that plan never reached completion for many reasons, such as Fatah factions, Hamas, Israeli duplicity, the Arab Spring. Neither did his plan to overhaul the education system, which had three primary goals: strengthening critical-thinking, developing language skills, and combating extremism. It goes without saying that Palestine would already be a different place if those plans had been executed properly.
2. Having been away from Palestine for so long, many new voters, too young to remember him as PM, do not know who he is.
3. He is a quietly spoken man, very much an academic and seriously lacking the charisma of a Barghouti or Dahlan.
4. Being neither Fatah or Hamas, he has no power base on which to build, unlike Dahlan and the other main candidates.
5. The current political situation is too fraught, with people frightened of the possibility of a Hamas-led government, frustrated at the continuation of corruption under Fatah, tired of the Gaza-West Bank split, and the stagnation of the peace process with Israel. The time does not seem right for a moderate like Fayyad; a quiet, secular, pro-Western "nation-builder, as opposed to the fiery nation-destroyers who loudly promise to destroy Israel, or threaten terror as a means to force them to the negotiating table," as a former colleague recently said.
I would think that Fayyad's list will certainly pass the electoral threshold, but won't go much beyond that. I was surprised he didn't merge with either of the Dahlan or Qudwa/Barghouti lists, preferably the former.
I'm disturbed by his dismissal of the Quartet's Principals but I'd like to think that's just a bit of electioneering - he knows Hamas will be allowed to run anyway as there would be mayhem if they were barred - for all their faults they do have supporters amongst the Palestinian people, and, although currently diminishing in number, they have the right to be represented.
Salam Fayyad is a serious man who should have a place in a serious Palestinian government. I hope he does well enough to warrant a position of influence in the national unity government he is seeking.
