Election 97
Student Debate
Today the Birzeit campus turned into an outdoor stage for the Student Council pre-election debate. A strict debate format insures equal time to all parties participating in the election: each party is allowed a five minute introduction speech, and each has five minutes to respond to each of the four questions posed by the Dean of Student Affairs. In theory, this format is supposed to create a congenial, civilised atmosphere, but the passionate nature of Palestinian student politics inevitably led to several heated exchanges.
The debate--which took place outside the Omar Al-Aggad Engineering Building--attracted well over one thousand students who leaned out of windows, perched on the top of neighboring buildings and walls, and crowded into the open space in front of the stage in an effort to get a good view. The major blocs also packed the area near the stage with their own supporters so that flags and signs could be waved in support.
Throughout the debate, bloc supporters in the crowd would chant and shout in the period between changes at the podium, interfering with speakers. At the outset, bloc leaders and activists managed to quiet their supporters during these switches, but by the end, they had, for the most, given up.
Like politicians in any country, the bloc leaders were rarely forthcoming in their answers to the prepared questions. Instead, the blocs used their time to engage in heated exchanges with the opposition. For example, the Islamic Bloc aggressively attacked the pro-Fatah Jerusalem Bloc for the actions of the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority. They criticized the Jerusalem Bloc's declaration that they supported democracy and free speech, asserting that many of the Jerusalem Bloc's own members were informers for Palestinian security services. The left wing Progressive Democratic Student Pole accused Jerusalem Bloc members of coordinating with the PA in relation to the demonstration at the 'Atarah Bridge near Birzeit. The Jerusalem Bloc defended its sincerity on this issue, asserting it was a political party independent from the PA.
In common with last year's election, the issue of security services operating on campus was one of the most hotly discussed issues of the day. At present, the Palestinian Authority directs approximately 18 separate security organs (the U.S. has 12), and some members of the Birzeit community estimate that one in five students informs for the PA. The Progressive Democratic Student Pole's condemned the Preventive Security Service's presence in the University as undemocratic and harmful to student political life, achieving a broad consensus among the blocs.
The religious blocs and the Progressive Democratic Student Pole also exchanged heated barbs, this time over the place of religion in society. The Bloc of the Martyr Fathi Shaqaqi accused the Progressive Democratic Student Pole of wanting the "kind of freedom" to open bars in Ramallah, so that Palestinian returnees could "carry on the luxurious lives they enjoyed in the West." The Progressive Democratic Student Pole refuted this assertion, saying that they supported freedom of choice, and were dedicated to resisting any imposition of moral values, whether it is western cultural imperialism or Islamic--for example, the forcing of women to wear the Hijab (Islamic veil).
The Islamic Bloc interpreted this example as an insult to their women members wearing Hijab, and demanded an immediate apology. The Pole representative clarified his position by expressing that women should be free to choose whether or not they wear Hijab, and that the Progressive Democratic Student Pole was open to all regardless of religion.
National politics were never far away during the debate. At one point, the Islamic Bloc belittled the Jerusalem Bloc's name, asking which Jerusalem they were actually referring to - an "international Jerusalem," "West Jerusalem," "East Jerusalem," or "Islamic Jerusalem?"
The Bloc of the Martyr Fathi Shaqaqi also attacked the Jerusalem Bloc for supporting the Oslo peace process, saying that "the reason that we are in this bad situation is because of the coming of the PNA and those who followed... You are trying to escape from the great Islam." Instead, they asserted that "Our Islam is the solution... our only choice is Islam."
Although the debate was high in entertainment value, little time was spent on addressing issues that students face. In answer to one question about what each bloc would do if it was given 100,000 Jordanian Dinars (around US$130,000), the Progressive Democratic Student Pole replied that their first priority would be the completion of the student complex on campus, the construction of which began in the 1980s. The Jerusalem Bloc stated that it would spend the money on tuition and books for students. The Islamic Bloc pointed out that this year it spent a lot money on a special library for students that could not afford to buy new books, and that all its finances were documented and available for checking. The Bloc of the Martyr Fathi Shaqaqi said that it would spend the money for the propagation of Islam on campus.
Although they participated in the introductory and closing speeches, the Change Bloc did not answer the questions during the debate, as agreed by the elections preparatory committee. This was decided as the Bloc had not been active on campus in the previous academic year. Some members of the preparatory committee disagreed with this decision.
Written by Hanan Elmasu, Juliette Harkin, Michael O'Neill,
Nigel Parry, and Sophia Spiliotopoulou
Debate Translation by Ashraf Dabbagh
Photos coming soon...