Dialogue on the people's terms?

Writer: Rizq Atawneh

The most dangerous thing that could happen to the Palestinian people is not that the elections are postponed again, but rather that the political elite succeeds in convincing them that postponing the elections is a price that must be paid in exchange for a dialogue whose results they do not trust. After nineteen years of absence of elections, the question has become: Why do we once again trust the same parties that failed to end the division, and grant them the right to decide when to restore the legitimacy of the people, as if this legitimacy could be postponed whenever it conflicts with their political calculations?

We are facing a political paradox. The Palestinian issue is going through an existential stage, the occupation seeks to uproot the people from their land, and the genocide in Gaza calls for the highest levels of national unity, but the political forces are unable to transform this conviction into a unified political system and elected institutions.

Since the division in 2007, general elections have been absent, one of the most important tools of oversight and accountability has been disrupted, and the gap between society and its political institutions has widened. Successive governments were formed without gaining the confidence of an elected legislative council exercising its constitutional powers. The ability to build a joint national strategy has declined, and decisions have become more susceptible to exclusivity. The state of alienation from the regime’s institutions has also increased among social groups that find themselves required to bear the consequences of decisions they did not participate in making, and to face a political reality that they have no democratic means to change.

This does not mean that holding elections alone is enough to end the occupation, stop the genocide, or restore unity. But it means that a people fighting an existential battle cannot continue this battle with the same political tools, institutions with limited representative vitality, and a leadership that is not regularly subject to accountability and popular renewal.

I tried Palestinian dialogues in Mecca, Moscow, and other capitals, and the meetings repeated statements that heralded an end to division and the restoration of unity. But the question that should be asked is how many commitments have been implemented by the powers and the amount of change that the citizen has experienced in his life.

If these forces have been unable, over many years, to transform their agreements into political and institutional unity, then what has changed today that requires the people to give them new confidence, without different guarantees, or new negotiating rules?

What is required is to liberate dialogue from the monopoly of the factions and to transform it into a tool for postponing the democratic entitlement. Consensus that protects the highest national interests is what opens the way for the people to decide.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the political forces are serious this time about ending the division, restoring the right to renew legitimacy, restoring vitality to the institutions of the political system, and opening the way for those who wish to manage public affairs through voting. Then, the dialogue mechanisms must differ from previous ones, otherwise there will be no justification for expecting different results.

First: changing the composition of the negotiating delegations, not summoning the same faces who participated in previous rounds without succeeding in implementing their outcomes, and opening the way for independent figures and actors in public affairs, youth, women, and civil society, who have the ability to present visions that go beyond the calculations of remaining in power.

Second: The dialogue must be held within Palestine. The dialogue that decides the future of the Palestinians must be close to the people and their aspirations and not remain a closed dialogue in which organizational calculations take precedence over the national interest.

Third: The dialogue must be public and make it possible to review the proposals, positions, and reasons for disagreement. To ensure direct feedback from public opinion and to know who seeks consensus and who obstructs reaching it.

Fourth: Agreeing on a binding timetable, specific, measurable outcomes, and an independent mechanism to follow up on implementation, with the publication of minutes of commitments and the definition of responsibilities. The meeting should not agree to leave the implementation details to new, endless negotiations.

Fifth: Renewing legitimacy through elections should be an essential part of the dialogue’s outcomes. Discussing practical guarantees for holding elections in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, and confronting the obstacles of the occupation, without turning them into a permanent justification for suspending the democratic right.

The most dangerous thing that the next dialogue could produce is recycling the crisis, postponing the elections, and then holding external circumstances alone responsible for the failure. Therefore, decision-makers must participate in this dialogue while realizing that failure will not pass without a political price. What is required is a declared commitment from the delegation leaders that this round will be a last opportunity for them to manage the reconciliation file and renew legitimacy, and that its failure will result in them stepping down from leadership positions and political retirement, according to clear and previously agreed-upon mechanisms that ensure that this responsibility does not turn into a moral slogan without effect.

Some may object that this condition is strict, and that this stage cannot tolerate a political vacuum or uncalculated adventures. But the corresponding question is more pressing: Can the stage tolerate the continuation of the representative vacuum, exclusivity, and disruption of institutions for an indefinite period? Is it permissible for the people to remain hostage to the accounts of the elites, while their land, rights, and national existence are exposed to liquidation attempts?