Arab society is undergoing a process of internal democratization

By: Tamim Abu Khait Some in the Arab community are asking: Why isn’t there a joint list?While others ask: Why should there be one at all? Isn’t multiparty diversity one of the pillars of democracy? And are we all identical in our opinions, approaches, and ways of thinking?

In recent weeks, a wave of public discussion has swept through Arab society—perhaps for the first time on such a scale—mainly across social media platforms.It is an open debate on several fundamental social issues, crossing political parties, genders, regions, ages, and professions, and most importantly — a legitimate, democratic, and cultural discussion.

The Debate Over the Joint List

The discussion began with the question of forming the Joint List.At first, there was an almost general consensus in the Arab community on its necessity.However, as the debate grew, it became clear that there was a deeper division — not only about whether to form the list, but also about the very principles of democracy, pluralism, and freedom of expression.

There is no doubt that there are fundamental differences between the ideology of the United Arab List (Ra’am) — religious, Islamic, and pragmatic to the point of concession — and the ideology of Hadash and Balad, which are secular, socialist, and rigid in their positions to the point of outright refusal to compromise.Would uniting them under one roof not limit freedom of thought and expression on religious, social, and political issues?And even if a joint list is formed, why shouldn’t it also include prominent independent public figures who are not affiliated with political parties?

The Debate Over the Composition of the Follow-Up Committee

The discussion then shifted to the composition of the High Follow-Up Committee for Arab Citizens of Israel,which is made up mainly of representatives of Arab political parties and heads of local authorities.This raised many questions:What about independent voices, successful non-political public figures, intellectuals, academics, workers, and farmers?Wouldn’t it be appropriate to restructure the committee so that it reflects Arab society in a broader, more democratic, and more effective way?

The Debate Over the Exclusion of Women

Later, the discussion expanded to the issue of male dominance and the exclusion of women,both in political party lists and within the Follow-Up Committee — which includes no women at all.

The issue came to the forefront after the formation of a committee to elect a new chairperson for the Follow-Up Committee,which consisted of seven men and no women.

This move sparked widespread protest from women’s organizations, associations, and many women in general,as well as from numerous men and organizations supporting gender equality.

The debate reached its peak this morning during a program on Radio Al-Nas —the most popular radio station in Arab society —when Mr. Mansour Dahamsha, a member of the Follow-Up Committee’s leadership and of the political bureau of the Israeli Communist Party,responded to a question about the lack of female representation in the committee by saying:

“Politics is not of interest to Arab women.”

These remarks provoked a wave of anger and criticism,prompting Mr. Mohammad Barakeh to issue a statement of disapproval and condemnation,and forcing Mansour Dahamsha himself to release an apology statement.

A New Democratic Transformation

Thus, it seems that the process of democratic transformation within the Palestinian Arab society in Israelis entering a new, more cultured, conscious, and objective stage.

Arab society is rejecting old assumptions and rising up to challenge its leadership in an effort to correct and renew its path.