When the will of the people becomes the last thing to be asked about...the Palestinian elections between the crisis of legitimacy and the calculations of the elite

Writer: Naeem Harb

The Palestinian political crisis is not merely the absence of elections or the failure of institutions; Its essence is deeper in who has the right to produce political legitimacy, and who decides in the absence of the voter? Since the presidential elections in 2005 and the legislative elections in 2006, the Palestinian political system has not witnessed regular electoral renewal that restores institutions to their source of popular legitimacy. With the division and disruption of the Legislative Council and the accumulation of understandings and exceptions, the absence of elections has become an extended situation, not a temporary vacuum. When the ballot box is absent for a long time, politics does not stop. Rather, the decision production process gradually shifts to understandings between centers of power and political elites. Here lies the problem: the farther the citizen moves away from the legitimacy industry, the wider the area of ​​politics that is managed away from him. Therefore, elections are not just a legal entitlement, but a mechanism for restoring the balance between power and society, renewing the political mandate, and opening the way for deliberation and accountability.

This issue gains additional importance when recalling the experience of 2021. The electoral process began at that time, before a decision was issued on April 30 to postpone the general elections until the conditions for holding them were met in all the Palestinian territories, most notably Jerusalem. The issue of Jerusalem was a real challenge, and the occupation imposes actual restrictions on any Palestinian electoral process. But the result remained the same: the electoral process stopped and the voter did not reach the ballot box. That is why the 2021 experience has become part of society’s political memory, and has made the current question more sensitive: Can the electoral process this time move from announcements and procedures to actual voting?

In the current electoral process, November 28, 2026 was set as the date for voting, and the nomination phase began on September 26, then the nomination period was extended until October 13, with the Central Elections Commission confirming that the extension does not change the voting date. Here the terminology must be precise. Extending the nomination period is an electoral procedure, while postponing the elections is a change in the voting date. It is not permissible to confuse them. But the importance of adhering to the date does not stem from the extension itself, but rather from the context in which it comes. After the experience of 2021, confidence becomes linked to the ability of the process to continue without procedural amendments or political differences turning into an excuse to change the voting date. What is required, then, is not to reject any procedural amendment, but rather to ensure that the electoral process does not become open to a series of changes that end up emptying the entitlement of its content.

Talking about responsibility requires a degree of precision. The official authority and leadership possess the tools of executive and institutional decision-making, and therefore bear direct responsibility for protecting the electoral process and adhering to the announced date. Any official decision to postpone the vote holds the party making the decision clear political and institutional responsibility. But reducing the crisis to power alone does not explain the entire scene. Political factions and forces are not outside the political system; It is an essential party in it, possesses organizational and popular influence, participates in formulating national understandings, and influences the trends of public opinion. Therefore, it in turn bears the responsibility of protecting the principle of elections, not just observing and criticizing the behavior of the authorities. Here, a distinction must be made between the difference in the amount of responsibility and the difference in the origin of the responsibility. The authority is more responsible for the executive and institutional decisions, while the factions bear political responsibility for their positions on the electoral process, and for the extent of their willingness to accept rules of competition that may produce results that do not serve their interests. The democratic opposition is tested not only by criticizing power, but also by the extent of its willingness to defend rules that could lead to the transfer or redistribution of power. On the other hand, it is not enough for the authority to declare its commitment to the elections; The real test is to transform this commitment into fixed procedures that lead the voter to the ballot box. Here the parties are equal in principle, even if they are not equal in tools and direct responsibility.

The importance of national consensus in the Palestinian situation cannot be denied. It is necessary to address division, create the political environment, protect the electoral process, and address the obstacles it may face. National consensus is a necessity when it protects elections, and a problem when it replaces them, but consensus becomes problematic when it turns from a means of facilitating elections into a condition for achieving them. Political forces can agree on the rules of competition, ensure integrity, mechanisms for participation, and address obstacles. But it cannot agree in advance on the outcome that the voter is supposed to determine. Here lies the difference between agreeing on the rules of the game and agreeing on its outcome. The former protects democracy. The second detracts from its function. The Beijing Declaration of July 2024 was an important milestone in the Palestinian reconciliation process, with its directions towards ending the division, building institutions, and preparing for elections. But political agreements, no matter how important, still need institutional and popular translation so that dialogue does not become a permanent substitute for the ballot box.

The additional time gives political forces space to rearrange alliances, address internal disputes, and build new positions. In contrast, the citizen does not obtain a similar political privilege; Rather, he is asked to wait again. Therefore, any decision to postpone the voting date, if it occurs, should be subject to clear accountability. What are its reasons? How long is it? What measures will address the reasons for postponement? What is the guarantee that it will not turn into an open postponement? These questions do not target a specific party, but rather protect a general principle, which is that political time should not become a privilege for the elites at the expense of society’s right to renew its legitimacy. The occupation cannot be ignored as a factor influencing the electoral process. Jerusalem, freedom of movement, barriers, geographic division, and security and political conditions are all real challenges. But recognizing the obstacle does not mean turning it into a permanent right to disrupt the elections. The real challenge is how to protect the democratic process under these circumstances, and deal with the obstacles politically, legally, and practically, instead of waiting for ideal conditions that may not be available. At the same time, the occupation should not be used to cover up internal deficits, nor should internal discord be used to ignore the restrictions imposed by the occupation. The national responsibility here is twofold: confronting the external obstacle and preventing it from turning into an excuse to obstruct internal reform.

If the election is postponed again, the effect will not simply be a change in the polling date. The decision will come over the memory of 2021 and over long years of absence of democratic renewal. This may lead to further erosion of trust in institutions, widening the gap between the citizen and the political system, and consolidating the belief that elections can begin without necessarily reaching their end. The greatest danger is that postponement turns from an exception imposed by specific circumstances into a way to manage political disagreement. Then legitimacy becomes viable without popular renewal, and consensus among elites becomes a practical alternative to appealing to the voter. Here the crisis moves from an election crisis to a political system crisis. The issue at its core: who decides? The Palestinian question today is not only: Will elections be held? The deeper question is: Who has the right to decide the future of the political system? The authority has greater executive and institutional responsibility. The factions have a political and popular responsibility to protect the rules of democratic competition. Both of them, despite their different locations, face one test: Will the decision be returned to the citizen or will it continue to be produced within elite circles? Democracy does not mean that a specific party wins, nor does political forces get the result they want. Democracy means that the outcome can be decided by the citizen, and that the parties accept the outcome of the fund even when it is not in their favor. Therefore, what is required is not agreement on who rules, but rather agreement on how the people choose who rules. Agreeing on the rules of competition is a political responsibility, while the outcome of the competition is the right of the voter.

If the exit from the legitimacy crisis begins with elections, then protecting this path requires clear commitments, not general statements: -

First: fixing the voting date. November 28, 2026 should be a stable date, and should not be changed except for a clear, declared, and time-bound exceptional reason, with political differences or factional calculations not being used as a reason to postpone the eligibility.

Second: Keeping the management of the electoral process within its independent, professional framework. The Central Elections Commission must be protected from political interference, and enabled to implement the electoral schedule in accordance with the law and with complete transparency.

Third: The authority and the factions adhere to the rules of competition before its results. What is required is to declare a clear political commitment to respect the election results, whatever they may be, and not to turn political disagreement into a means of challenging the process after the results appear simply because they are inappropriate.

Fourth: Transforming national consensus into a tool for the success of the elections. Dialogue between political forces must focus on removing obstacles, ensuring participation, and addressing the issues of Jerusalem, division, and freedoms, not on negotiating the outcome of the elections or conditions that prevent reaching them.

Fifth: Establishing a declared mechanism to deal with exceptional obstacles. If the electoral process faces obstacles related to the occupation, Jerusalem, movement, or security, there should be announced procedures to deal with them, so that every obstacle does not turn into an open reason to suspend the entire election.

Sixth: Opening the way for citizens, not just for elites. Democracy is not reduced to polling day; It requires a political environment that allows freedom to nominate, campaign, express, compete, monitor, and equal access to voters.

Seventh: Make postponement, if it becomes inevitable, an accountable decision. Any postponement must be reasoned, limited to a period, and linked to a plan to address the reasons for the postponement, and must not turn into an indefinite extension of the existing situation.

These are not conditions for one party, but rather rules that the authority, factions, candidates and relevant institutions must adhere to, because elections do not succeed only by conducting the ballot, but by accepting its rules and results.

After more than two decades of electoral absence, the issue no longer tolerates an open political administration with no time horizon. What is required is not formal elections, nor a consensus that produces new authority from within the elite, but rather a democratic process that restores to the citizen his right to choice, accountability, and change. This requires the authority to protect the deadline, institutions and procedures, the factions to protect the principle of competition and acceptance of results, and everyone to deal with consensus as a means of reaching the fund and not an alternative to it. As for the citizen, he should not remain the recipient of decisions taken in his name and then be asked to grant legitimacy to their owners. It has been a long time to manage the dispute from above, and the time has come to bring it back to where it should be resolved, through the will of the voter. Legitimacy is not extended by understandings, it is not settled by balances, and it is not granted by a political decision. It is renewed when the people have the opportunity to choose, monitor, hold accountable, and change. What is required today is clear: fix the voting date, protect the independence of the electoral process, open the way for competition, address obstacles transparently, commit in advance to accepting the results, and make every political consensus a bridge to the ballot box and not a wall in front of it.