Dr. Abdulmajeed Swelem

[Original Arabic URL: http://www.al-ayyam.com/article.aspx?did=217401&date=]

June 13, 2013

 

Dr. Salam Fayyad is now finally able to relax, and quietly and slowly sip his coffee. Now he can pay attention to the joys of personal life, immerse himself in them and enjoy their intimate qualities. For the last six years, he was unable to do any of that, or much else for that matter, as he dedicated himself entirely to leading the Palestinian government, but without having complete control of the levers of power. Nonetheless, this man has been the embodiment of a true warrior, in every sense of the word. 

 

Dr. Fayyad impressed the world with his competence, efficiency, conscientiousness and effectiveness; he allowed himself no leisure or fatigue. I sometimes felt sorry for his staff, who were always at the receiving end of Fayyad’s constant pressure to complete their required tasks. I sometimes wondered where he found his ability to tap into a seemingly endless appetite and energy for the never-ending work he engaged in, which seem to increase at every stage, and even from moment to moment.

 

It is not important how we, his observers, look at Fayyad’s accomplishments, whether it is the same way he does, or whether we bestow on them the same value or significance he might. It doesn't matter if we assign our own evaluation to these achievements, or even if we judge whether the goals set and outcomes achieved during his tenure had the required or desired impact. But what is important is that, I believe, the overwhelming majority of us were able to recognize his dedication and accomplishments. This is a rare trait in Palestinian leadership, reminiscent of the heritage of Palestinian leaderships. His tenure is one that has taught us, and other Arab societies -- and will continue to teach future generations -- lessons in the meaning of commitment and sincerity.

 

Fayyad’s term as head of government deserves deep and sustained analysis, as noted by my friend Ashraf Alajrami in his article published yesterday. It is important that we conduct a serious evaluation and assessment of the rich experiment in which he engaged, fraught as it was with intense work and accomplishments, but also beset with myriad challenges and problems. However, no one can seriously dispute that Fayyad possesses, in addition to his dedication and competency, a democratic mentality and philosophy that is profoundly original, deep and energetic. He is a strong believer that the Palestinian people have sufficient national resources and capabilities to enable them to be one of the most prosperous and successful people in the region and maybe the whole world—perseverance, ingenuity, and creative energy—if allowed to thrive in a comprehensive democratic system that is deeply connected to and rooted in its own society and the broader region.

 

Dr. Fayyad’s intellectual and philosophical vision meant that his projects, programs and initiatives were generally progressive and forward-looking in nature. This was mainly because he took the personal initiative to lay the foundations of its intellectual base by facing real problems and challenges with the intention of always moving forward. What was particularly note-worthy was that his leadership style broke new ground and abandoned failed traditional approaches. His seemingly endless ability to put forth new initiatives, innovations, and courageous programs is also worthy of significant praise. 

 

His indefatigable confidence and can-do attitude was obvious in his projects, programs and style of governance. He did not allow the fear of failure to inhibit his approach to solving problems in a practical and effective manner. This is a remarkable quality because the fear of failure frequently limits the goals set by governments and limits progress, sometimes even leading to complete paralysis.

 

Dr. Fayyad succeeded in creating a sense of national unity and government coherence under conditions that seem virtually impossible and in which others had tried and failed to succeed, particularly regarding security issues. Dr. Fayyad never tired of saying that the key to keeping the Palestinian national project alive is meeting the challenge of law and order, since it is the first principle of governance and the only way to effectively challenge Israeli policies seeking to enforce their own control. He knew that only when people feel safe and secure, and believe the government is providing a climate of safety and security based on law and order, could progress be made. In our meetings he would repeatedly complain about the difficulties facing governance in the West Bank, and would specifically blame the ability of Hamas to undermine national sovereignty by constructing parallel structures of authority.

 

In an extraordinarily short period of time, Dr. Fayyad was able to reconstruct a crumbling and dysfunctional national security apparatus, and to restore law and order on the streets of Palestinian cities. He succeeded in blocking practices and projects that would have ensured the failure of the Palestinian Authority and its budding national structures. And he was able, also in record time, to win strong international support for the Palestinian national political and economic agendas. His institution-building program became a major political tool for gaining international recognition for our people and to secure support and aid for our national rights. Dr. Fayyad also succeeded in eliminating the barriers that stood between the leadership and the people, because he approached the people at a personal level and communicated with, consulted, and listened to them, rather than simply talking at them. 

 

But how is it that Dr. Fayyad's approach collapsed?

  

When we talk about a collapse, we don’t mean only his own failings, but the deliberate efforts of others to ensure that he and his policies failed. I strongly believe that the failure of his programs was in fact more a function of external sabotage than anything inherent to his approach, without absolving Dr. Fayyad of at least partial responsibility for the outcome.

 

In any ways, Dr. Fayyad initially did develop a workable modus vivendi with the Palestinian presidency, meaning both the president himself, personally, and his office generally. Developing a good professional relationship with them was more than necessary, and indeed it was more important than anything else. Dr. Fayyad was successful when he was enjoying the full support of the President. But over time became clear that there was a covert rift between the two, which ultimately became an overt one.

 

Dr. Fayyad was also unable to make common cause with the Fatah movement. This was also necessary because of the leading and central position of Fatah in the national system. It was also important because of the nature of the movement, which is challenged with serious deficiencies within its disunited internal structure and lack of fundamental harmony, while it nonetheless acts as a major center of power.

 

Dr. Fayyad was not always able to rally the support of other Palestinian factions for his economic and social projects and programs. But the sabotage leveled against him over the course of the last year (and maybe even earlier than that) was not policy or performance-related but derived from differences regarding the positions of the national authority and the PLO, and particularly their confrontations with the Americans and Israelis in the UN Security Council and General Assembly. 

 

This kind of sabotage was and will continue to be one of the forms of pressure and “punishment” to coerce the PA and PLO to accept peace deals that compromise Palestinian national rights. It’s also a clear warning for the future regarding the practical ramifications of taking additional steps that challenge Israel in international forums and multilateral agencies. But the practical impact of all of these confrontations was that Dr. Fayyad was made to pay the price for the nationalistic stances of the PA, the President, and the PLO. This was a kind of “political” sabotage that had no direct relation to Dr. Fayyad or his policies. On the contrary, he bore the burden of introducing economic, financial and tax reforms to his programs, and attempting to reduce the impact of external financial aid on the budget. 

 

The targeting of Dr. Fayyad was in fact primarily the outcome of the absolute animosity of Hamas toward him, for obvious reasons, especially his refusal to accept any undermining of authority in the West Bank and his insistence on establishing effective security services, under a single, accountable authority, and establishing a government monopoly on the use of force and possession of weapons.

 

Unfortunately, this inevitable tension over security policy converged with issues based on personal interests (some of them more imaginary than real) of some of the Fatah leaders, which made continuing coexistence impossible. So both sides used the slogan of national unity to get rid of Dr. Fayyad, a development that is worrying and lays the foundation for even more drift in national policies, particularly given that the overwhelming majority of the Fatah leadership know perfectly well the degree to which rhetoric about national reconciliation has become a miserable political game.

 

In other words, when Dr. Fayyad's tenure in office was sabotaged, it was because of his approach and vision, not because of his specific programs, projects and policies. And without question, this fact reflects well on his legacy and should not be regarded as anything for which he can be considered accountable. Dr. Fayyad succeeded even when success was difficult and thorny, and he failed when anyone else would also have failed, because he was made to fail and absolutely prevented from succeeding.

 

In the end, and assuming that Dr. Fayyad is going to return to public service and to the national field after a break -- which we hope will be a short one --, then nothing fundamental will have changed. Dr. Fayyad is still capable of contributing much more to our national project. We hope and expect, and many of our people look forward to, his return to the national leadership scene. This is nothing more than a short break for a real Palestinian warrior.