Opposition without costs: when objection becomes an end in itself

Writer: Dr. My profit is a state

Opposition in political life is neither a luxury nor merely a stance against authority. Rather, it is a necessity to correct mistakes, monitor performance, and hold those responsible accountable. Without serious opposition, the authority may take the decision alone without sufficient oversight. But the problem begins when the objection turns from a means of reform into a fixed position that does not change with changing circumstances, and is not governed by clear standards, as if what is required is to reject everything issued by the other party, regardless of its content or results.

This is what has begun to attract attention in part of the political opposition in Palestine, where citizens have begun to hear objection to decisions and positions issued by the leadership of the authority, to the point that it has sometimes become difficult to distinguish between criticism that is based on objective reasons, and rejection that is governed by political disputes and calculations. When every decision becomes the subject of attack, and every position becomes a reason for objection, regardless of its nature or justifications, the matter raises serious questions about the usefulness of this discourse, and whether its goal is to correct the course or register a position against the leadership simply because it is the one making the decision.

This does not mean that the Palestinian situation is ideal, or that the Authority’s decisions and actions are beyond error and accountability. On the contrary, there are decisions that deserve criticism, performance that needs review, and issues that the citizen has the right to ask about and get clear answers about. But there is a big difference between an opposition that criticizes for reform, and another whose objection seems to have become a preconceived position that is not affected by the nature of the decision, and does not stop at its results or repercussions on people’s lives.

This problem clearly appears in issues related to elections. Some may object to its conduct under the pretext of the lack of appropriate conditions, or the absence of sufficient guarantees for its integrity, and then they return to criticize its postponement and consider it a disruption of the democratic entitlement. This is not necessarily a contradiction, if there are clear reasons that explain the two positions, such as the opposition demanding real guarantees for holding the elections, and at the same time refusing to let the postponement turn into an open obstruction with no time limit. But when positions change without explanation, and every choice becomes a reason for attack, then criticism loses much of its credibility.

The problem is that this type of opposition puts its supporters in a comfortable position. They do not bear responsibility for the decision or the consequences of its implementation, yet they reserve the right to veto every step, without presenting a clear vision of what they want. It is easy to raise your voice against a decision, but it is more difficult to explain to people what the alternative is, how it can be implemented, and what results are expected from it. Politics is not merely a matter of recording positions, but rather a responsibility that requires clarity of vision and the ability to distinguish between the available options, even when all of them are difficult.

When conflicts prevail in this scene, political disagreement becomes an end in itself, and serious discussion of issues affecting people's lives declines. In the Palestinian case, where the citizen faces accumulated living and political burdens, these disputes do not remain merely disputes between political parties, but rather reflect on his confidence in all political work, and increase his feeling that his interests come last. The citizen who is waiting for solutions to his problems is not so concerned with who wins a political debate, as much as he is concerned with seeing clear positions and decisions that serve his interests and ease his burdens.

However, it is not permissible to put the entire opposition in one basket, or demand that it agree to the decisions of the authority until it proves its good intentions. She has the right to reject, criticize, and reveal shortcomings, even if she does not have a ready solution for every problem. But people also have the right to demand that she explain the reasons for her positions, to ask her about the standards she adopts, and the alternatives she proposes when possible. The opposition is not exempt from accountability simply because it is outside government, just as the authority is not immune from criticism simply because it bears responsibility for administration.

Also, changing the situation is not a defect in itself; Policy is affected by facts, and a person may discover that his previous assessment was incorrect, so he reconsiders it. But responsibility requires that he explain to people why he changed his position, and what new things prompted him to do so. As for the insistence on attacking everything issued by the opponent, even if it comes close to the demands of the opponent himself, it gives the impression that the dispute is no longer related to the content of the decision, but rather to who issued it.

On the other hand, criticizing a contradictory opposition does not mean justifying the authority’s mistakes or automatically considering its decisions correct. A decision is measured by its causes, results, and the extent to which it serves the public interest, not by the number of its supporters or opponents. The authority may be wrong even if some of its critics come with contradictory positions, and the opposition may be right in criticizing a certain decision, even if it fails in other positions.

In the end, the value of the opposition is not measured by the number of times it says “no,” but rather by its ability to provide understandable and specific criticism, expose errors, and defend positions that can be interpreted and relied upon. In Palestine, we need a serious opposition that does not grant the authority a certificate of innocence, but does not make rejection of its decisions a fixed rule either. The citizen does not want an authority that does not make mistakes, or an opposition that objects to everything. Rather, he wants both parties to bear their responsibilities and put the public interest above narrow calculations.

The opposition has the right to hold the authority accountable, and society has the right to hold the opposition accountable. But when disputes become the master of the situation, and objection turns into an end in itself, the first and last loser is the citizen, who pays the price for disagreements that do not provide him with a solution, nor open a better horizon for him.