When the Will of the People Becomes the Last Thing to Be Asked About… Palestinian Elections Between the Crisis of Legitimacy and Elite Calculations

Author: Naim Harb

The Palestinian political crisis is not merely the absence of elections or the disruption of institutions; its essence is deeper in who holds 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 a regular electoral renewal that returns institutions to their source of popular legitimacy. With the division, the disruption of the legislative council, and the accumulation of understandings and exceptions, the absence of elections has become an extended state, not a temporary void. When the absence of the ballot box prolongs, politics does not stop; rather, the process of decision-making gradually shifts to understandings between centers of power and political elites. Here lies the problem: the further citizens are from the production of legitimacy, the wider the space of politics that is managed away from them. Therefore, elections are not merely a legal obligation, but a mechanism to restore balance between authority and society, renew political mandate, and open the space for circulation 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 conducting them in all Palestinian territories were met, primarily in Jerusalem. The issue of Jerusalem was a real challenge, as the occupation imposes actual restrictions on any Palestinian electoral process. However, the outcome remained the same: the electoral process stopped, and the voter did not reach the ballot box. Thus, the experience of 2021 became part of the political memory of society, making the current question more sensitive: Can the electoral process this time transition from announcement and procedures to actual voting?

In the current electoral path, November 28, 2026, has been 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. The two should not be confused. However, the importance of adhering to the date does not stem from the extension itself, but from the context in which it comes. After the experience of 2021, trust becomes linked to the ability of the process to continue without procedural amendments or political disputes becoming an excuse to change the voting date. What is required, then, is not to reject any procedural amendment, but to ensure that the electoral path does not open up to a series of changes that end up emptying the entitlement of its content.

Talking about responsibility requires a degree of precision. The authority and official leadership possess the tools for executive and institutional decision-making, and therefore bear the direct responsibility for protecting the electoral process and adhering to the announced schedule. Any official decision to postpone the voting places a clear political and institutional responsibility on the decision-making body. However, reducing the crisis to just the authority does not fully explain the scene. The factions and political forces are not outside the political system; they are a fundamental part of it, possess organizational and popular influence, participate in shaping national understandings, and affect public opinion trends. Therefore, they also bear the responsibility for protecting the principle of elections, not just monitoring and criticizing the authority's behavior. Here, it is necessary to differentiate between the varying degrees of responsibility and the different origins of responsibility. The authority is more responsible for executive and institutional decisions, while the factions bear political responsibility for their positions on the electoral process and their readiness to accept competitive rules that may produce results not serving their interests. Democratic opposition is not only tested by criticizing the authority but also by its readiness to defend rules that could lead to a transfer or redistribution of power. Conversely, it is not enough for the authority to declare its commitment to elections; the real test is to translate this commitment into concrete measures that bring 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 context cannot be denied. It is essential for addressing the division, preparing the political environment, protecting the electoral process, and tackling the obstacles it may face. National consensus is necessary when it protects elections, but it becomes problematic when it replaces them. Consensus becomes problematic when it shifts from a means to facilitate elections to a condition for achieving them. Political forces can agree on competition rules, ensure integrity, establish participation mechanisms, and address obstacles. However, they cannot agree in advance on the outcome that should be determined by the voter. Here lies the difference between agreeing on the rules of the game and agreeing on its outcome; the former protects democracy, while the latter undermines its function. The Beijing Declaration / July 2024 was an important milestone in the path of Palestinian reconciliation, as it included orientations towards ending the division, building institutions, and preparing for elections. However, political agreements, no matter how significant, still need institutional and popular translation so that dialogue does not become a permanent substitute for the ballot box.

The extra time gives political forces space to rearrange alliances, address internal disputes, and build new positions. In contrast, the citizen does not receive a similar political privilege; rather, they are asked to wait once again. Therefore, any decision to postpone the voting date, if it occurs, should be subject to clear accountability: what are its reasons? What is its duration? What measures will address the reasons for the postponement? What guarantees are there to prevent it from turning into an open-ended delay? These questions do not target any specific party but rather protect a general principle that political time should not become a privilege for elites at the expense of the community's right to renew its legitimacy. The occupation cannot be ignored as a significant factor in the electoral process. Jerusalem, freedom of movement, checkpoints, geographic division, and security and political conditions are all real challenges. However, acknowledging the obstacle does not mean turning it into a permanent right to disrupt elections. The real challenge is how to protect the democratic process under these circumstances and to deal with the obstacles politically, legally, and practically, rather than waiting for ideal conditions that may not be available. At the same time, the occupation should not be used to cover up internal shortcomings, nor should internal disputes be used to ignore the constraints imposed by the occupation. The national responsibility here is twofold: to confront the external obstacle and to prevent it from becoming an excuse to disrupt internal reform.

If the elections are postponed again, the impact will not just be a change in the voting date. The decision will come on top of the memory of 2021 and many years of absence of democratic renewal. This could lead to further erosion of trust in institutions, an expanding gap between the citizen and the political system, and the entrenchment of the belief that elections can begin without necessarily reaching their conclusion. The greatest danger is that postponement could shift from being an exception imposed by specific circumstances to a method of managing political disputes. At that point, legitimacy becomes sustainable without popular renewal, and consensus among elites becomes a practical alternative to appealing to the voter. Here, the crisis shifts from an electoral crisis to a political system crisis. The essence of the issue is: who decides? The Palestinian question today is not only: will elections be held? The deeper question is: who has the right to determine the future of the political system? The authority has a greater executive and institutional responsibility. The factions have a political and popular responsibility to protect the rules of democratic competition. Both, despite their different positions, face a single 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 that political forces get the result they desire. Democracy means that the result should be one that the citizen can decide, and that the parties accept the outcome of the ballot box even when it is not in their favor. Therefore, what is required is not a consensus on who governs, but a consensus on how the people choose who governs. Agreeing on the rules of competition is a political responsibility, while the result of the competition is a right of the voter.

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

First: Establishing the voting date. November 28, 2026, should be a stable date, and it should only be changed for a clear, announced, and time-specific exceptional reason, without using political disputes or factional calculations as a reason to postpone the entitlement.

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

Third: The authority and factions must commit to the rules of competition before the results. A clear political commitment is required to respect the election results, whatever they may be, and not to turn political disputes into a means to challenge the process after the results appear simply because they are not favorable.

Fourth: Turning national consensus into a tool for successful elections. The dialogue among political forces should focus on removing obstacles, ensuring participation, and addressing issues related to Jerusalem, division, and freedoms, rather than negotiating the outcome of the elections or conditions that prevent reaching them.

Fifth: Establishing a public mechanism to deal with exceptional obstacles. If the electoral process faces obstacles related to occupation, Jerusalem, movement, or security, there should be publicly announced procedures to address them, so that no obstacle turns into an open reason to suspend the entire entitlement.

Sixth: Opening the space for citizens, not just elites. Democracy is not limited to election day; it requires a political environment that allows for freedom of candidacy, campaigning, expression, competition, monitoring, and equal access to voters.

Seventh: Making any necessary postponement a accountable decision. Any postponement should be justified, time-bound, and linked to a plan to address the reasons for the postponement, and should not turn into an indefinite extension of the current situation.

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

After more than two decades of electoral absence, the issue can no longer bear an open political management without a time horizon. What is required is not formal elections, nor an agreement that produces a new authority from within the elite, but a democratic process that restores to the citizen their right to choose, hold accountable, and enact change. This requires the authority to protect the date, institutions, and procedures, and for the factions to uphold the principle of competition and accept the results, while everyone treats consensus as a means to reach the ballot box, not a substitute for it. As for the citizen, they should not remain a recipient of decisions made in their name, only to be asked to grant legitimacy to their makers. The time for managing disputes from above has long passed, and it is time to return it to where it should be resolved, through the will of the voter, for legitimacy is not extended through understandings, nor resolved through balances, nor granted by political decision; it is renewed when the people are allowed to choose, to monitor, to hold accountable, and to change. The demand today is clear: set the date for voting, protect the independence of the electoral process, open the space for competition, address obstacles transparently, commit in advance to accepting the results, and make every political consensus a bridge to the ballot box, not a wall against it.