Rare internal criticism of Abbas
Op-ed by Fatah official Sufian Abu Zaydeh
“I am revealing no secret nor adding nothing new when I say that the Palestinian people has reached a stage of frustration and loss of confidence in its leadership and its ability to find solutions to the distress and disasters they are facing and find a way out of them. The frustration and loss of confidence do not just concern the ability to end the occupation, protect the holy places and reduce the attacks of the settlers - these are high aspirations no one expects to be realized in the foreseeable future; [rather,] the frustration essentially arises from the shrinking of the Palestinian political system and its reduction to the figure of President [Mahmoud] Abbas.
Today, the President directs everything related to the Palestinian people and the Palestinian cause: he is the Chairman of the PLO, the President of the State of Palestine and the Chairman of the PA; he is also the Chairman of Fatah and the Supreme Commander of the [Security] Forces. With the suspension of the PA Parliament (Legislative Council), it is President Abbas who issues legally binding orders – meaning, he has effectively replaced the PA Parliament. With the complete paralysis of the PLO institutions, he is the only decision-maker there…
In truth, no one ever dreamed we would reach our current situation, in which all powers are concentrated in the hands of a single person, and all the most senior positions are occupied by a single person. We never dreamed that a man would come – whatever his abilities or talents might be – who would not only repeat President Arafat’s attempts to consolidate power, but would also receive powers that not even Yasser Arafat himself, with all his symbolic [importance] and greatness, ever received.
One of the central reasons that made President Abbas a natural candidate [for the PA Presidency] after President Arafat’s death was that many people were convinced that President Abbas’ administrative policy would be completely different from President Arafat’s, since President Abbas spoke a great deal about the need to build the institutions, to avoid a concentration of power in the hands of one person, to separate the authorities, to [re]build Fatah and to stimulate the activity of its governing bodies.
In President Arafat’s time, the Palestinian leadership frequently talked about the need for him [Arafat] to appoint himself a deputy in the PA and the PLO… Today, the same mistakes are being repeated, but in a more serious way, since the PA and PLO Chairman has no deputy. The reason for the lack of deputies is not just President Abbas, but the absence of real leaders capable of expressing their positions without fear. Part of the problem is that not only does President Abbas not hear enough voices telling him ‘no’ when necessary, but that most officials let him hear what they think he wants to hear. They tell him, ‘You are the President; there is no alternative besides you; you are our candidate and there is no one else besides you.’
These [officials] have renounced their right to lead and Fatah’s right to fulfill its pioneering and leading role. It should come as no surprise, then, if the President behaves as if Fatah and the PLO had no leadership. Naturally, there is no PA Parliament fulfilling the role of overseer of the state’s legislative bodies – including the President’s activities – and it is not working to pass laws. Therefore, it is the President who appoints the prime minister and the ministers, firing or keeping whom he pleases in their posts – despite the fact that the resolutions of the Sixth Fatah Convention clearly determine that it is the Central Committee that proposes and determines the names.
Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the majority of President Abbas’ close associates and those who influence his decisions are not affiliated with Fatah and its decisions. It is no coincidence that the resigned prime minister, Rami Hamdallah, was appointed two deputies with no affiliation to Fatah. (Note: PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah resigned on June 20, 2013, and Abbas accepted his resignation three days later. However, on September 19, 2013, at Abbas' request, Hamdallah formed a new government.) Neither is it a coincidence that the majority of the ministers who are permanent members of the government are not affiliated with Fatah. The explanation is clear: Fatah senior officials and members renounced their right with submission and humiliation – either because they attained their leadership positions by chance and do not believe they are leaders, or out fear for their interests and positions.
This helplessness and fear are linked to the basic problem plaguing the Palestinian political system in general, and the Fatah leadership in particular: the President [Abbas] has complete power to dismiss, appoint and promote. How can an ambassador, a minister, a deputy minister or a security officer oppose a decision or say ‘no’ to the President, when he knows that doing so will cost him his salary and position?
An example of the President’s ability to do anything in this Authority is the case of Ghazi Al-Jibali , who returned to Ramallah about a month ago, after being wanted… by order of the Prosecutor General, on charges of embezzlement. Al-Jibali returned to Ramallah… but Al-Jibali, whose extradition had been requested by the Palestinian legal establishment from Interpol, received amnesty from President Abbas, and all the cases involving corruption were closed. In Al-Jibali’s exoneration, President Abbas took [upon himself] the role of the prosecution, the Palestinian legal system and the Anti-Corruption Commission, which knew nothing of the affair…
The absence of the Legislative Authority as a supervising authority and the concentration of power into the hands of one person have made a separation of powers impossible. Ghazi Al-Jibali may be innocent… but who should decide that – the President or the legal system? The President or the Anti-Corruption Commission? Al-Jibali’s case should have ended with either an apology from the Prosecutor General and the Palestinian legal system for having tarnished his reputation– in the event that he was proven innocent – or with a verdict if he was proven guilty. But we are living in the President’s Era.”
“I am revealing no secret nor adding nothing new when I say that the Palestinian people has reached a stage of frustration and loss of confidence in its leadership and its ability to find solutions to the distress and disasters they are facing and find a way out of them. The frustration and loss of confidence do not just concern the ability to end the occupation, protect the holy places and reduce the attacks of the settlers - these are high aspirations no one expects to be realized in the foreseeable future; [rather,] the frustration essentially arises from the shrinking of the Palestinian political system and its reduction to the figure of President [Mahmoud] Abbas.
Today, the President directs everything related to the Palestinian people and the Palestinian cause: he is the Chairman of the PLO, the President of the State of Palestine and the Chairman of the PA; he is also the Chairman of Fatah and the Supreme Commander of the [Security] Forces. With the suspension of the PA Parliament (Legislative Council), it is President Abbas who issues legally binding orders – meaning, he has effectively replaced the PA Parliament. With the complete paralysis of the PLO institutions, he is the only decision-maker there…
In truth, no one ever dreamed we would reach our current situation, in which all powers are concentrated in the hands of a single person, and all the most senior positions are occupied by a single person. We never dreamed that a man would come – whatever his abilities or talents might be – who would not only repeat President Arafat’s attempts to consolidate power, but would also receive powers that not even Yasser Arafat himself, with all his symbolic [importance] and greatness, ever received.
One of the central reasons that made President Abbas a natural candidate [for the PA Presidency] after President Arafat’s death was that many people were convinced that President Abbas’ administrative policy would be completely different from President Arafat’s, since President Abbas spoke a great deal about the need to build the institutions, to avoid a concentration of power in the hands of one person, to separate the authorities, to [re]build Fatah and to stimulate the activity of its governing bodies.
In President Arafat’s time, the Palestinian leadership frequently talked about the need for him [Arafat] to appoint himself a deputy in the PA and the PLO… Today, the same mistakes are being repeated, but in a more serious way, since the PA and PLO Chairman has no deputy. The reason for the lack of deputies is not just President Abbas, but the absence of real leaders capable of expressing their positions without fear. Part of the problem is that not only does President Abbas not hear enough voices telling him ‘no’ when necessary, but that most officials let him hear what they think he wants to hear. They tell him, ‘You are the President; there is no alternative besides you; you are our candidate and there is no one else besides you.’
These [officials] have renounced their right to lead and Fatah’s right to fulfill its pioneering and leading role. It should come as no surprise, then, if the President behaves as if Fatah and the PLO had no leadership. Naturally, there is no PA Parliament fulfilling the role of overseer of the state’s legislative bodies – including the President’s activities – and it is not working to pass laws. Therefore, it is the President who appoints the prime minister and the ministers, firing or keeping whom he pleases in their posts – despite the fact that the resolutions of the Sixth Fatah Convention clearly determine that it is the Central Committee that proposes and determines the names.
Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the majority of President Abbas’ close associates and those who influence his decisions are not affiliated with Fatah and its decisions. It is no coincidence that the resigned prime minister, Rami Hamdallah, was appointed two deputies with no affiliation to Fatah. (Note: PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah resigned on June 20, 2013, and Abbas accepted his resignation three days later. However, on September 19, 2013, at Abbas' request, Hamdallah formed a new government.) Neither is it a coincidence that the majority of the ministers who are permanent members of the government are not affiliated with Fatah. The explanation is clear: Fatah senior officials and members renounced their right with submission and humiliation – either because they attained their leadership positions by chance and do not believe they are leaders, or out fear for their interests and positions.
This helplessness and fear are linked to the basic problem plaguing the Palestinian political system in general, and the Fatah leadership in particular: the President [Abbas] has complete power to dismiss, appoint and promote. How can an ambassador, a minister, a deputy minister or a security officer oppose a decision or say ‘no’ to the President, when he knows that doing so will cost him his salary and position?
An example of the President’s ability to do anything in this Authority is the case of Ghazi Al-Jibali , who returned to Ramallah about a month ago, after being wanted… by order of the Prosecutor General, on charges of embezzlement. Al-Jibali returned to Ramallah… but Al-Jibali, whose extradition had been requested by the Palestinian legal establishment from Interpol, received amnesty from President Abbas, and all the cases involving corruption were closed. In Al-Jibali’s exoneration, President Abbas took [upon himself] the role of the prosecution, the Palestinian legal system and the Anti-Corruption Commission, which knew nothing of the affair…
The absence of the Legislative Authority as a supervising authority and the concentration of power into the hands of one person have made a separation of powers impossible. Ghazi Al-Jibali may be innocent… but who should decide that – the President or the legal system? The President or the Anti-Corruption Commission? Al-Jibali’s case should have ended with either an apology from the Prosecutor General and the Palestinian legal system for having tarnished his reputation– in the event that he was proven innocent – or with a verdict if he was proven guilty. But we are living in the President’s Era.”