Elections, a Lifeline or Drowning?

Writer: Dr. Hassan Abulbada

In summary: No Palestinian electoral date has been surrounded by as much doubt as the upcoming legislative elections on November 28, 2026. The nomination period, after being extended, is open until October 13, and lists are crowding at the doors of the Electoral Commission, while discussions are taking place behind closed doors to find a suitable exit from the date. Nevertheless, I claim that the president's insistence on holding the elections, even if the occupation ultimately prevents them, is the last lifeline for the existing political system itself. Elections are no longer just a postponed democratic entitlement, but a condition for the survival of a system that has been drowning in a legitimacy crisis for twenty years, and neglecting them is a sin that people and history will not forgive us for.

While the tragedy of citizens deepens with the exposure of their security and safety in light of the settlers' war against us all, the movement intensifies and the generation of candidate lists in the electoral register continues, and the alignment among various factions of Fatah for victory on the glorious day continues. In the meantime, settlement outposts are springing up like rain, settlements are expanding, roads are being closed, and choking barriers and disconnection are growing, while the pseudo-leaders hope, or pretend to hope, for a miracle that would prevent the elections. My conviction, since I wrote in August that this entitlement still seems like "a pile of dreams," is that the elections will not take place, and I ask God to be wrong. Nevertheless, I hope the president clings to holding them. There are no excuses for postponing them, as they are our lifeline for change, and perhaps for national reconciliation. However, I believe that Israel will not allow them, in a bid to suffocate Hamas by all means, lower the political ceiling, and deepen the gap between the leadership and its people, not to mention that there are those in the legitimacy camp who do not wish to hold them for various reasons.

Question: Do people want the ballot box? Yes, and with an urgency we haven't seen in years. In a survey conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research at the beginning of August, 49% said that elections would take place on time, while the majority just ten months ago did not believe that the authority intended to hold them at all. 54% said that elections should be held even if Israel prevented voting in East Jerusalem, because Jerusalemites can vote at any center in the West Bank. This means that people see Jerusalem as a battle fought at the ballot box, not an excuse to close it. I do not read this urgency as a passion for democracy as much as I read it as a frustration with the situation. The same survey indicates that 79% want the president to resign, and 65% see the authority as a burden on its people rather than an achievement. A people who say this about their leadership and then call for the ballot box do not seek luxury, but rather throw a lifeline to their political system; change without breaking. Those who reject the lifeline push people to seek other gateways, and I do not think any of us wants to see them.

However, the hands that push the collar away extend from within our home before they extend from Tel Aviv. From the corridors of the central Fatah, a recommendation for postponement leaks to the summer of next year, in a "technical" format in which the election committee announces its inability to vote in Jerusalem and Gaza, making the postponement seem like fate rather than a decision. And Hamas, whose leader Khalil al-Hayya announced its intention to participate in the elections within a coalition, seems to secretly wish for what it publicly rejects, just as the Popular Front whispers the same request. In my opinion, the fear of the ballot box transcends factions, and each fears revealing its true size.

The statement from the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization on September 25 did not dispel this ambiguity; rather, it reinforced it with legal language. The committee insisted on holding elections in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, making the participation of citizens in all these areas and the synchronization of voting "two essential conditions for the unity of the electoral process." Holding onto Jerusalem and Gaza is an indisputable national stance, but I do not rule out that the very condition of synchronization could become the door through which postponement occurs; it is enough for voting to be impossible in Jerusalem or Gaza for the condition to fall, along with the date, without anyone signing a decision. Jerusalem is not without alternatives; even the Israeli writer Gershon Baskin suggests electronic voting and diplomatic missions as a way to ensure the voices of Jerusalemites are heard. Are we less concerned about this voice than he is?

In Fatah, fear has many names. The official list fears the congestion of other Fatah lists, including one likely to be supported by Marwan Barghouti or claims to be, and another backed by the reform stream. The reduction of the electoral threshold by law to 1% has opened the door for dozens of family, tribal, and financial lists, turning the national entitlement into something resembling expanded municipal elections. Since the first public meeting between the movement and the Dahlan stream in August did not yield anything significant, the failure to overcome the dilemmas of Fatah representation on the ground will open the door wide for more fragmentation that we fear, and it is likely to remain and grow, whether we vote or not. All that the postponement does is hide it under the rug for a while.

This confusion gives Israel what it needs, and there is no need to guess its intentions. Meir Ben Shabbat, the former head of the Israeli National Security Council, wrote on September 18 that Israel's interest is to prevent Palestinian elections, because merely holding them, regardless of the results, will pressure it to hand over Gaza to a 'renewed' authority and open the way to statehood. Worse still, he quoted Israeli voices advising to let President Abu Mazen 'extract the chestnuts from the fire' on its behalf, meaning that he should postpone it and pay the price himself. In other words, Palestinian postponement would be a free gift to the most hostile Israelis towards our state. The occupation does not need an official decision to prevent it, as the West Bank is fragmented by 942 checkpoints, gates, and obstacles, the highest number in twenty years, and our villages receive an average of six settler attacks every day. We saw the evidence this week when the occupation army imposed a complete closure on the West Bank under the pretext of Jewish holidays, forcing the president to extend the nomination period for the lists to reach the electoral committee. In short, those who choke the road to school and the field to harvest olives are likely to choke the road to the polling station.

However, fairness requires that we do not reduce everyone who fears the ballot box to those afraid for their seats. Hani Al-Masri, in his article on "Raya" on September 24, presents a significant opinion calling for a delay preceded by a national dialogue, for fear that the experience of 2006 or worse may be repeated, and that we may go to elections for dominance rather than participation, ending with two centers, one in the West Bank and another in Gaza. This is a concern I expressed in my previous article in August. Two-thirds of the people expect that the elections will not be free and fair. These are partially realistic arguments, but they do not justify a delay. As Al-Masri himself notes, the delay being marketed to March will extend to the end of next year and perhaps beyond, and nothing guarantees that tomorrow's conditions will be better than today's. We tried that on April 29, 2021, when the elections were postponed indefinitely under the pretext of Jerusalem, and the "deadline" remains open while barriers have multiplied and division has deepened.

The dialogue called for by the president and supported by the executive committee is appropriate, provided it is a path to the date and not a substitute for it. Doubts about integrity are addressed through international monitoring, not by canceling the ballot box, which the executive committee itself has called for, and French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot has announced that he will ask the European Union to send a mission for this purpose.

And then what?

If he insists on the date, the president will achieve five things: First, he will respond to a people who have been knocking on the ballot box for twenty years. Second, he will renew the political system through voting rather than through top-down agreements and appointments. Third, he will give Europe a reason to continue supporting us instead of an excuse to abandon us; it has transferred a portion of its funds to cover the costs of the elections, and the French Foreign Minister sees no technical or logistical obstacle that is impossible to overcome, threatening to stop support for the authority if the delay comes from us. Fourth, he will cement national unity at a moment when there is a desire to separate Gaza under international guardianship and isolate Jerusalem. Fifth, and most importantly, he will open the door to reconciliations: first within Fatah, then between it and Hamas and other forces. Of course, he realizes that Fatah may pay a price for its unity, but the fragmentation revealed by the ballot box is less costly than the fragmentation hidden by the delay.

If he decides to postpone under the pressure of power centers and interests, the consequences will be severe. His decision will be a betrayal of a public that believed this time, and will not believe again. It is a retreat from a commitment he made to the countries that recognized our state last year, and it is an invitation to confrontation with Europe, which links its support to reform and elections. It is a consolidation of the division of the people between Gaza and Jerusalem and the West Bank. And, before all of this, it is a surrender to the settlers' war on land and people, and an acknowledgment that the occupation decides when and how we choose our representatives.

I call on the president to adhere to the position of holding elections. Not only because it is a popular and international demand, nor because it ensures a smooth transition and a civilized transfer of power, but because it is the almost sole entry point to determine the fate of the transitional phase and to achieve national unity, and perhaps to open the door to reforming the movement and enhancing the chances of reconciliation. If the occupation prevents it, let it bear the burden of that prevention before the world. As for us preventing it, whether by recommendation or in a "technical" form or under carefully crafted conditions, that would be letting the lifeline slip from our hands, and the drowning that follows will not spare anyone, and the first to celebrate will be the extremist settlers.