The result of the elections in Palestine, with Hamas winning an outright majority and getting ready to govern, has been greeted with shock and worry in many places.
I'd like to argue that, while things will not be easy in the short and medium term, this is the best thing that could have happened both for Israel and for the West.
One thing that has been abundantly clear to all in most Middle Eastern countries - and not least to their own populations - is that they are both anti-democratic and corrupt. What is also obvious to their populations, but not so much outside, are two things:
- that these regimes are supported by the West, and therefore that corruption is encouraged and/or made possible by the West, which benefits from it at the expense of the population;
- that the only independent source of political or moral legitimacy tolerated in these countries is to be found with religious authorities. These regimes are cracking down on opposition parties and autonomous civil society organisations, but are tolerating religious movements, letting them run social/neighborood activities and services, and paying lip service to (or following) religious rules. In some cases, they even support the most extremist Islamist organisations as a way to "scare" the West and garner its support against the only visible alternative.
What these two elements combine together to do is that the deep resentment the populations have in these countries against their inept rulers (i) translates into hate for the West for its perceived support of these, and (ii) is channelled exclusively for the benefit of the religious organisations which are the only available alternative, and which are often of the most extreme variety.
Thus ardent islamism becomes associated with violently anti-Western feelings. That's been true in most countries of the region and, pretty much each time they have had the possibility to give their opinion, populations have supported the anti-Western islamists massively. The Iranian revolution was a genuinely popular affair (at first), and elections in Algeria in the early 90s and Iraq, Iran and Palestine today show the exact same pattern.
But put the religious extremists in power, and they have, sooner or later, to deal with the shades of grey of reality, to face off the fact that they become responsible for their acts on both the domestic and the international stage, and to care about staying in power. They have to run the budget and get taxes paid, they have to get the economy and the administration to work, they have to deal with unemployment, crime, poverty etc... They have to negotiate with outsiders. They represent their countries to the rest of the world and their country can be held accountable for their words and deeds. It's much easier to support terrorism as a political tool when you are a independent, rebel group than when you represent a whole country - and if you do, it immediately has a price for your citizens, with political consequences for you.
Thus "realists" emerge against the "purists", and, as the Iranian experience shows, the moderate "realists" usually become more popular with a population that will grow tired of the stifling morality and rules of the religious police or its equivalents, and of the intrusive or bumbling incompetence of the most absolutist leaders. That is, unless the hardliners can mobilise support against an external enemy which keeps on meddling in their country's affairs.
Islamic extremists, like all other hardcore ideologues, are not very good at running complex things, and they will quickly do a mess of things, and alienate their population. The only way this can be discounted is if they can keep on whipping the ideological (here, religious) fervor of the population and focus it on something else - typically an outside enemy. Israel, the USA, the West. Territorial disputes, meddling, the thirst for oil apply variously in each country, but have been used effectively by the islamists to drum up support (when in opposition) or keep it, when in power.
The best thing that the West can do is to take a step back, and let the country run itself without interfering, threatening or posturing. Iran, in the late 90s, was moving towards an internal revolution that could have gotten rid of the most radical islamists. what kept them in power was their ability to distract the population with nationalism and righteous pride in their existence as an independent nation, threatened by overbearing outsiders. The opposition was decredibilised by the excessive support it received from the West. Which means that we should not react too quickly to provocation, because that's exactly what they are seeking. Patience is not a weakness against people that explicitly seek outside conflict for internal political reasons.
In Palestine, it is obviously impossible for Israel to step back, as it is directly, intimately involved with the Palestinians, but having Hamas at the table has one major advantage: if they agree to a deal, it has a much better chance of actually being implemented than anything that the weak and increasingly despised Fatah could have agreed to. Hardliners have the necessary credibility to make a deal be swallowed (without being called traitors) by their side.
So the current attitude, which is to say that Hamas will be talked to only (officially) if they renounce terrorism is the right one. Terrorism by Hamas would now be an act of war by the Palestinian authorities, and make any military retaliation by Israel much more legitimate. Conversely, Hames halting terrorism would be much more likely to be enforced, and a real base to start negotiations. It will or it won't happen, but at least things will be much clearer than before.
Hardliners are hardliners, and will not be easy to deal with. But they will have to deal with their populations, and their aura can only fade in contact with the harsh realities of holding power in poor societies beset by many problems. Islamism as a political alternative will stop being a dream alternative, and will just become one option amongst others - or the exclusive power soon to be hated.
And Algeria reminds us what the alternative is: civil war, tens of thousands of dead civilians, and peace by exhaustion, with no real solution found to the underlying problems, which will pop up again soon.
And then there is Iraq, with Islamists elected and civil war, and the USA caught in the middle and feeding both...
So let's see what Hamas does, and let's treat them accordingly. We should not welcome them with open arms, and Israel should certainly not disarm, but let's not wage war on them without cause. Demythologising them will be a great thing for the West and for Israel, irrespective of what actually happens on the ground.