Election postponement crisis: Factional responsibility and national solution

Writer: Fathi Kulaib

In stable political systems, election dates are determined according to clear and known regulations and laws in advance, and any emergency or unexpected event is dealt with within institutional frameworks, and perhaps in agreement with political and societal forces, in a way that preserves constitutional legitimacy and enhances confidence in the democratic process. But in the Palestinian case, things look different. In the absence of a stable institutional and legal system, and effective national authorities capable of managing differences, it is easy for any issue, no matter how simple it may seem, to turn into a cause of conflict, which may threaten the unity of society and exacerbate its divisions.

This description applies to the Palestinian elections, whether legislative or National Council elections. Despite the specificity of the Palestinian situation, which is characterized by the continued occupation and its physical presence, in addition to the complicity of many Western countries with it, the methods of dealing with national issues in turn contributed to deepening the crisis, especially when some believed in the possibility of resolving major crucial issues through decrees and decisions, in isolation from national dialogue and political and societal consensus.

Based on this, positions vary regarding legislative elections, not only regarding the necessity of holding them, but also regarding their political function and outcomes, and their supposed role in rebuilding the political system and renewing its legitimacy. Instead of treating it as a national and democratic entitlement, and a gateway to renewing political life, it was subjected to the calculations of organizational and factional interests, and the logic of profit and loss for this or that party, thus limiting its national and democratic role, and emptying it of an important aspect of its contents and goals.

The postponement of the elections was the result of collusion between some factions whose interests converged when this entitlement was suspended. This re-raises the fundamental question about the extent to which the Palestinian forces are prepared to prioritize the national interest over their factional interests, and to treat elections as a right of the people and a tool to renew the legitimacy of their institutions, not a card subject to bargaining and political exploitation.

The irony is that the various Palestinian political factions and forces agreed to describe the challenges under which the elections will be held, especially the occupation and its plans, the continued division, and the catastrophic reality in the Gaza Strip in light of the aggression, destruction, displacement and their repercussions. However, despite the validity of this description, these challenges are not urgent developments, but rather form part of the Palestinian reality that the national forces are supposed to deal with with responsibility and awareness. Therefore, presenting pretexts for postponing the elections has raised serious questions about the true motives behind this decision, and whether the postponement is related to political and organizational calculations that do not want some entitlements to impose themselves on the Palestinian scene.

What is most telling is that the same challenges that some rely on to justify postponing the elections are held by other factions and forces as additional reasons confirming the necessity of holding them. From this point of view, it is not possible to confront the occupation and its plans, address the division and restore national unity, or save the Gaza Strip and rebuild the institutions of the Palestinian political system, without renewing legitimacy and restoring the popular will. Although elections are not a magic solution to crises, they can constitute an entry point for rebuilding political life on democratic and participatory foundations. Therefore, the real question is not related to the existence of challenges, as everyone is aware of them, but rather how to deal with them: Do we make them an excuse to disrupt democratic life, or an incentive to unify efforts and agree on a necessity that allows them to be carried out despite the difficulties?

Today, legitimate and fundamental questions are being raised before the forces that called for the postponement of the Palestinian elections and supported this option. First: Is it expected that Israeli dealings with the West Bank and Gaza Strip will change during the next year? Will the annexation plan decline, whether the current Israeli government continues or a new government comes? Will the United States abandon its plans to separate the Gaza Strip from the West Bank? Then, will the Palestinian division end, and the factions be able to overcome their differences, or will we remain prisoners of the same crisis?

The answer to these questions lies with the forces that bet on the possibility of achieving breakthroughs in addressing the challenges that they used as a justification for postponing the elections. If these challenges are the actual reason behind the decision to postpone, and not factional calculations or regional considerations, what will be the position of those forces, if pressure is exerted on the authority, which has already begun, in order to reconsider the decision to postpone the elections. Rather, what will its position be when we reach September 2027, without any real progress being achieved in ending the division, confronting annexation and settlement plans, or stopping attempts to separate Gaza from the West Bank? Will we return to square one, and once again call for the postponement of the elections under the pretext of the continuation of the same conditions, thus turning postponement into a permanent approach to disrupting democratic life? Or will we have the political will to transform these challenges into a comprehensive national battle against the occupation and its plans?

Retracting the postponement decree, or moving the election date forward from September to June 2027, in response to Western desires, is not a desirable option, as it may weaken the credibility of the Palestinian Authority and make it appear more responsive to external pressures than to the demands of its people and its political forces. The issue is not related to rejecting international positions in principle, but rather the need for the Palestinian decision to be independent, emerging from a responsible national dialogue, and based on the supreme national interest.

Also, reversing the decree to postpone the elections seems unlikely at the current stage, which means that we are facing a serious political crisis, for which the parties that took the decision to postpone and agreed to it bear responsibility, without adequate appreciation of its repercussions and repercussions at the various national, political and democratic levels. The danger of postponement is not limited to disrupting an electoral entitlement, but extends to deepening the crisis of confidence, perpetuating division, and weakening the chances of renewing the legitimacy of Palestinian institutions, which raises serious questions about the political and national responsibility of those who made this decision.

A decision may be taken to advance the election date based on external desires, or it may be held on the new date that was determined as a result of the postponement, but the reality on the ground may have witnessed fundamental changes during this period. Here lies one of the most prominent dangers of postponement, which may not have been present in the minds of those who called for and supported it, and who treated the time factor as if it were a secondary detail, without realizing its political and national repercussions.

Despite this, searching for ways out of the current crisis is a national responsibility that falls on everyone who is concerned about the Palestinian cause and seeks to protect it from plans that target its existence, its future, and the rights of its people. Reaching a solution requires, first, the availability of a real and serious political will to address the crisis, away from factional calculations and narrow organizational interests. This will only be achieved through a comprehensive national dialogue, in which all Palestinian forces participate without exception, and which is able to contain differences and reach consensual and binding outcomes that protect the national interest, reduce losses, and open the way to restoring national unity and partnership, away from side deals for which we paid a heavy price.