Institutions Must Review Mandates Amid Serious Allegations, Not Just Legal Convictions
A political institution's responsibility extends beyond legal convictions when considering an individual's suitability for public office, especially when serious allegations arise. This principle is highlighted in the case of Jaafar Farah, director of the Mossawa Center, who was elected second on the Hadash list within the Joint List. The "Harasser, Resign" campaign argues that while criminal conviction is one standard, political institutions must also assess whether credible allegations, even if not legally proven, warrant withdrawing trust and authority.
The article distinguishes between the legal standard of "innocent until proven guilty," which pertains to state punishment, and the political standard of "who is fit to hold public trust." Political bodies are not courts, but they must exercise political responsibility. This involves evaluating not just who has not been convicted, but who is deemed worthy of holding power, representing the public, and embodying the institution's image. The absence of a crime's proof does not equate to the presence of eligibility for office.
Women who report harassment often face significant social and professional repercussions, particularly in close-knit communities. Their reluctance to engage in lengthy, public confrontations or relive their experiences should not be interpreted as a lack of credibility or a moral failing. The article posits that when certainty is unattainable, institutions must weigh the consequences of doubt, considering the potential harm to both the accused and the accusers.
Institutions are urged to establish clear procedures for handling such allegations, respecting the accusers' autonomy and privacy while allowing the accused to respond to the core claims. This process should not be a substitute for legal proceedings but a responsible assessment of suitability for public trust. The article criticizes the tendency for institutions to shift the burden of proof or decision-making onto the women involved.
Ultimately, political mandates are not rights but trusts. Institutions must review these trusts when confidence is questioned, even if legal proof is absent. This requires a broader assessment of integrity and public trust, going beyond the minimum threshold for avoiding legal condemnation. The article concludes that inaction is also a decision with consequences, and institutions must be accountable for how they manage information and exercise their authority.
