A proposal to President Mahmoud Abbas

I am not exaggerating when I say that I feel insulted whenever I hear or read someone talking about “Abu Mazen’s succession,” because that means that we are a people who lack electoral legitimacy and still live in an age of submission to rulers and inheritance, which contradicts the simplest principles of democracy, especially since we are not a monarchy in which the king owns but does not rule, but rather we live under a system that is supposed to be a parliamentary system, and because we have a basic law that, if it had been implemented, no one would have talked about inheritance.

I am also not exaggerating when I say that the people who talk the most about the “post-Abu Mazen era” – as they call it – are the Israelis. I have repeatedly faced this question, whether from the Israeli media, or from foreign delegations visiting Israel and meeting with Israeli officials, and I hear them talk about this in the context of questioning the ability of the Palestinian people to manage their own affairs and focusing on the lack of democracy and good governance among the Palestinians.

In all cases, I have noticed that when the Israelis talk about inheritance, they talk about it by referring to the absence of a Palestinian democratic mechanism for selection, and that the “post-Abu Mazen era” will witness conflict and fighting over the seat, and that they - the Israelis - are preoccupied with the issue of ensuring that things do not get out of their control at that stage.

The last thing I read in this regard was a study prepared by the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) which stated that “Recognizing that the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is weak and based on the growing evidence that the lack of legitimacy has led to a serious impairment of the Palestinian Authority’s ability to govern and the ability of the Palestinian security services to operate, Orit Barlop was busy this week searching for whether there is an (alternative) leadership or leaderships in the West Bank that enjoy broad popular legitimacy.”

Berloop examined and researched three main influential groups from which local leaders usually emerge: academic student unions, independent municipal politicians, and the economic elite of businessmen.

"Orit says that the members of these groups, which belong to the academic elite - businessmen - and administrators, are the most pragmatic because they live in the West Bank and not in exile, and they were all elected in free elections and have the ability to move and organize the masses."

What I mean by this example is to indicate that the Israeli authorities at all levels are busy searching and exploring who will take over after the absence of President Abbas, or the disintegration of the authority, which is assumed to occur as a result of the conflict and internal fighting over the succession.

I wonder to what extent we are preoccupied with thinking about the future of the Palestinian Authority and the smooth transfer of power in the event of the president’s absence.

We went through this experience when the martyr President Yasser Arafat passed away, but at that time we had a Legislative Council in effect and we resorted to the mechanism provided for us by the Basic Law in Clause (2) of Article (37) whereby the Speaker of the Legislative Council at that time, Brother Rawhi Fattouh, assumed the duties of the presidency of the National Authority temporarily for a period of sixty days during which free and direct elections were held to elect a new president.

It is no secret that there were those who tried to question the commitment to the interim period and assumed that it might be extended to seize the presidency, but Palestinian democracy, at that time, disappointed the doubters and proved that we are a people who respect our laws and institutions.

So where are we today from that event that is a source of pride for all of us! Today we live without a legislative council, and we do not have a valid president of the legislative council, and we cannot implement the basic law with regard to this particular matter.

It must be said that in the absence of a constitutional mechanism to fill the vacuum and move from the temporary phase to the permanent situation, it is very possible that a conflict over the seats will occur, the result of which may be internal fighting or the loss of everything that has been achieved on the path to building the authority, considering that it was a step towards establishing the state. Therefore, there must be a mechanism that closes the doors to anyone who covets the seat and anyone who believes that he is the next heir, including what Hamas may claim that the last speaker of the Legislative Council is the most deserving of the presidency, even if it is temporary, or anyone who Israel or the regional powers may impose to ensure their interests and the continuation of their hegemony.

Although I am not a supporter of issuing decrees by law and I believe that they have been exploited to enact laws or amend other laws that do not meet the condition set by Article (43) of the Basic Law, which is “cases of necessity that cannot be delayed,” I suggest that the President issue a decree by law that includes adding the following words to Clause (2) of Article (37): “In the event that the Speaker of the Legislative Council is unable to be present, this task shall be entrusted to the Speaker of the National Council, with full compliance with the provisions of this article.”

Although I do not rule out that some will confront this proposal and question its legality, I believe that our urgent need to find a mechanism that guarantees a return to the path of electoral legitimacy and blocks the way to inheritance or fighting over power justifies and gives legitimacy to this proposal. The end justifies the means, especially in war and politics.