Palestinian Politics after Arafat: A Failed National Movement

3. Arafat’s Heritage of Political Control

Arafat’s Heritage of Political Control The roots of the current Palestinian situation go back to the nature of the regime that was created by Arafat after the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), and to his regime within the structure of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The way in which Arafat led the Palestinians can provide a partial explanation for both Palestinian achievements since the 1950s and also for the Palestinians’ failure to attain their national goals. In any event, Arafat’s style of rule constitutes one explanation for the Palestinian situation today, including the rise of Hamas in opposition to Arafat’s control and the hegemony of Fateh. Arafat’s Control over PLO Institutions, 1968–1993 From the 1960s through 2004, Yasser Arafat dominated the leadership of both the Fateh movement and the PLO and its various institutions. This control encompassed political, financial, and public relations, and organizational domains. In the last forty years of his life, Arafat was the only figure with the power to unite, make decisions on behalf of, and lead the Palestinians—to the degree that the evolution of the Palestinian problem can be said to have been an expression of Arafat’s mode of decision making,1 and his life a direct continuation of the decisions he took in the name of his people. Arafat’s Achilles’ heel was simultaneously the principal source of his strength: his belief that he alone possessed the capacity to bring the aspirations of the Palestinian people to fruition.2 3 72 / Palestinian Politics after Arafat Over the decades Arafat employed many means of influencing various aspects of the Palestinian problem. In addition to his own leadership qualities, he appointed individuals loyal to himself, to positions of power, thereby ensuring that PLO institutions would make the decisions he favored. Control of the Armed Forces Yasser Arafat was elected chairman of the PLO’s Executive Committee at the fifth session of the Palestine National Council, which was held in Cairo February 1–4, 1969. A major change introduced during the session, one considered a personal victory for Arafat,3 was that for the first time the chairman of the Executive Committee was also named supreme commander of the “forces of the revolution”; in other words, Arafat himself was placed at the head of the military wing of the PLO. It was also decided that the PLO’s armed struggle would be overseen by representatives of the various Palestinian armed factions. From that time onwards, Arafat served both as chairman of the PLO’s Executive Committee and as supreme commander of the “forces of the revolution.” The Quota System Arafat exploited the quota system of representation in PLO institutions to guarantee passage of the decisions he supported and the selection of his confidants to important posts. The Fateh movement always had the largest quota, supplemented by so-called independents, who have generally either been supporters of Fateh or been supported by it, as well as representatives from women’s organizations , student unions, trade unions, professional associations, and other constituencies. In this way Arafat assured himself a majority that allowed him to run the PLO’s institutions, while remaining within the formal regulations of the organization. One of the fundamental principles of the political activity of the PLO was that “independents” were associated with every faction; most of them, however, were identified with Fateh.4 The quota system, according to which positions and funds were distributed, constituted the foundation of the PLO’s organizational structure, and, as such, generated frequent disagreements and quarrels.5 The quota system was instituted in order to guarantee the continued hegemony of the armed struggle organizations within the PLO, as it existed in 1969, and therefore the true center of power lay elsewhere. The system guaranteed these organizations most of the seats in the Palestinian National Council (PNC) and the Central Committee, as well as representation on the Executive Committee . Accordingly, decision making fell under the control of the political groups, Arafat’s Heritage of Political Control / 73 and decisions were always made outside the legislative and executive organs of the PLO. Because these organs had no real power, a vacuum was created at the top of the power structure—a vacuum that was filled by one man, a single individual who had replaced the institution.6 Since the 1960s the Fateh movement has been able, at various levels, to restrict the struggle...