BOOK
REVIEW
Fundamentalism with nuances
Hamas in Politics by Jeroen Gunning
Reviewed by Sreeram Chaulia
Since the 2006 election victory of Hamas in the Palestinian
territories, the big debate has been whether a hawkish
militant movement could evolve into an accommodative
political actor. The answer could determine whether Israel
and the United States will ever allow a full-fledged
Palestinian state to emerge. As long as Tel Aviv and
Washington fear Hamas taking over an independent Palestinian
state and turning it into a jihadi paradise, a final
settlement will be delayed.
In a new book based on extensive field research, British
political scientist Jeroen Gunning argues that although
Hamas is self-consciously motivated by Islamism, its
practices are "confined by necessity and opportunity" (p
55). His thesis is that Hamas is a changing product of a
dynamic environment and should not be judged as an unmoving
monolith.
Hamas was launched in 1987 as the quietist Palestinian
Muslim Brotherhood's paramilitary wing. It was a move by the
Brotherhood to remain politically relevant when
radicalization was becoming the norm under the first
Intifada. Hamas outgrew its creators and soon became the
central Islamist player by virtue of sound grassroots
organization and deft relationships with donors in the Gulf
Arab states. Its heterogeneous and decentralized structure,
with an internal leadership separated from an external
leadership, helped expand following from wide sections of
Palestinian society.
From 1992, Hamas began repeatedly defeating the dominant
Palestine Liberation Organization faction of Fatah in
student and professional union elections. The installation
of a Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA) after the Oslo
peace accords changed the balance of power by granting state
apparatus and foreign sponsorship to Yasser Arafat's
coterie. One factor influencing Hamas' decision to continue
armed struggle against Israel despite Oslo was its rivalry
with Fatah. The wave of Hamas suicide bombings on Israeli
targets in the mid-1990s was not just an expression of
fanatical resistance but also of intra-Palestinian tussles
for power.
By the new millennium, public disillusionment with Oslo and
the PA's misrule discredited Fatah and gave fresh legitimacy
to Hamas' inveterate hostility for Israel. Hamas' fortunes
also soared due to the long-term growth in the size of the
Palestinian lower-middle and middle classes, who resented
the PA's nepotistic grip on business opportunities.
In the book's early chapters, Gunning parses through Hamas'
political philosophy. One core belief in the movement is
that a genuine Islamic state cannot be imposed by force but
must be willed by a clear majority of the people. To achieve
this endpoint, Hamas advocates "education" and
"socialization" through a network of charities, mosques,
orphanages and schools. Gunning notes the tension between
respecting popular will and seeking to "prepare society"
into wishing for an Islamic state. By presuming to know what
is in the best interests of the masses, Hamas' vision
carries the dangers of "forcing people to be free". (p 91)
Other paradoxes lie in Hamas' endorsement of "free will" for
all human beings, but with the rider that they must submit
themselves to God's will by obeying the sharia. Political
leaders are expected to ensure that people behave in
accordance with God's laws, but rulers have to first win the
consent of the ruled through free nation-wide elections.
Gunning remarks that Hamas' ideal political system is
"neither a theocracy nor a democracy but a hybrid" that
contains echoes of Western social contract theories. He
contrasts it with the models of Takfiri jihadi outfits like
al-Qaeda, which see no need for elected legislatures.
Breaking with the dominant theme in Islamic jurisprudence,
Hamas refrains from insisting that legislators be qualified
religious experts. The vast majority of its current
municipal councilors and legislators are secular
professionals. Hamas' proposed legislature in an Islamic
state would have no authority to pass fatwas (rulings) and
no automatic seating for religious scholars. The movement
also rejects Iran-style vetting of candidates for elections
by a religious tribunal.
Hamas' internal organizational structure is consistent with
its ideology. The elected shura (council) is its
highest legislative body. Not even charismatic leaders like
Ahmad Yassin, Abd al-Rantisi or Khalid Mish'al can overturn
the council's collective will. In Hamas' collegial
leadership culture, grooming family members for political
succession is condemned. Consensual leadership prevents
splits in the organization but also militates against
flexible decision making.
Gunning observes a widespread practice of Hamas' upper
echelons nominating candidates for organizational positions.
Since party bigwigs limit the choice of candidates, there is
no free and open competition for posts. On sensitive
subjects such as whether or not to recognize Israel,
enormous pressure is exercised on members to conform to the
dominant view. Even if the dissenting position represents
the majority view of grassroots members, the demand for
Islamic unity is used to enforce compliance. Gunning refers
to this strategy as "symbolic violence".
The ability to inflict violence against Israelis is an
important source of legitimacy for Hamas as an organization
and for its individual commanders. However, Hamas rarely
resorts to internal violence to discipline its members or
settle their disputes. Few schisms have sundered Hamas
compared to Fatah because of the former's explicit emphasis
on Islamic fraternity and selflessness.
In the 2004-2006 municipal and legislative elections, Hamas
fared particularly well in urban areas and refugee camps
where Islamism had greater resonance and traditional clan
intermediaries were weak. It campaigned on a platform of
anti-corruption, religiosity and security, issues shown by
surveys to be voters' main concerns. By shrewdly catering to
the winds of public opinion, it outdid the clueless Fatah.
Gunning's crucial deduction is that if elections are held
regularly, Hamas is likely to pay heed to shifts in the
popular mood and compromise on a few principles. For
instance, Hamas' take on the status of women progressed over
time from arch conservative to active encouragement of
female political participation. In 2006, Hamas played down
its "destruction of Israel" goals and did not field al-Qassam
fighters as candidates to avoid alienating undecided voters
wedded to a two-state solution. Concerns over losing mass
popularity also constrained Hamas from elevating its
skirmishes with Fatah into a civil war (fitnah).
Hamas' rhetorical opposition to the peace process with
Israel has been implacable. However, it intermittently
refrained from attacking Israeli targets in 1996 and again
since early 2005. In February 2007, it went so far as to
agree to "respect" past pacts between the PLO and Israel.
Gunning explains these puzzling actions as not only tactical
concessions to gain relief from Israel's targeted
assassinations but also as deference to Palestinian public
opinion.
Unlike during the 1990s, Hamas today cannot afford to be
seen as blatantly contradicting the popular will, since its
dependence on winning elections has increased. Its 2003,
2005 and 2008, its ceasefires with Israel were propelled by
major shifts in public opinion in favor of halting violence.
Yet, Gunning sees an unresolved internecine tug-of-war
within Hamas between "pragmatists" (Gaza based politicians)
and "absolutists" (paramilitary leaders and refugees). The
latter category is not amenable to the vagaries of public
opinion and is more steadfast on the vow of relentless
jihad.
The 1996 waves of suicide bombings, for example, were
spanners thrown by the "absolutist" external leadership to
disrupt rapprochement between the "pragmatic" internal
leadership and the PA. According to Gunning, the
"pragmatists" need incentives to keep Hamas on the path of
compromise, but Israel and the US have lately been doing
everything that strengthens the "absolutists".
Gunning concludes the book with an assessment of Hamas'
contribution to democratization of Palestinian politics. Its
constituency of lower-middle classes and its participatory
internal practices are conducive to democracy. But its
parallel armed forces and welfare structures are impediments
to realizing an impartial state with high capacity and low
coercion. Its involvement in vicious inter-factional
violence against Fatah also severely undermines democratic
processes.
Gunning runs a fine-toothed comb through the nuances of
Hamas' fundamentalism but does not discuss whether it has
the yen to demilitarize state and society in an independent
Palestine, whenever it is born. He does not consider if
Hamas has been complicit with Fatah in silencing non-violent
projects and streams in Palestinian thought. As Hamas morphs
from an opposition faction into a ruling party, how liberal
will it be towards a civil society that is critical of
authorities? Hamas is certainly responsive to majority
public opinion for the sake of votes, but does it have the
eclecticism to defend minority standpoints?
Reports of serious rights abuses in Gaza are warning shots
that alternative voices may not find space in a future
dispensation under Hamas. Gunning convinces that some Hamas
elements are interested in a deal with Israel, but he leaves
a haze around how the movement will deal with its own
people.
Hamas in Politics. Democracy, Religion, Violence by
Jeroen Gunning. Columbia University Press, New York, 2008.
ISBN: 978-1-85065-876-4. Price U$$ 34.50, 310 pages.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights
reserved. Please contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.) |