First: The context within which the Elections’ Decree was issued: a fragile and vulnerable glimmer of hope in a deteriorating status-quo.
On 15/1/2021, the president Mahmoud Abbas issued a decree law that ordered the holding of general elections after (15) years of deactivation, a period that perpetuated an essential dysfunction of the political system and almost a destruction of its most fundamental institutions including the parliament, the sole body with a constitutional legislative and monitoring mandate. Throughout these years, the executive authority monopolized the legislative process and employed it arbitrarily. Furthermore, civil elements of society and the principle of national partnership were marginalized. The principles of separation between authorities and the independence of the judiciary were not honored either as there were numerous incidents in which the executive authority flagrantly intervened in the work and administration of the judicial authority.
As for the presidential decree, which was widely viewed as possibly the last glimmer of hope that could potentially fix that which is fixable if the process resumes as planned, it stated that the legislative (parliamentary) elections are to be held on 22/5/2021 and the presidential elections on 31/7/2021. The decree considered the elections of the Legislative Council to be the first phase of the subsequent formulation of the National Palestinian Council, itself set to be fully formulated on 31/8/2021 according to the Statute of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and other inter-factional agreements.
The issuance of the presidential decree was a consequence of repeated and long discussions held between the two sides of the Palestinian political division: the Fatah and Hamas parties. The former was represented in those discussions by the party’s Central Committee member Jibril Rajoub and the latter by Hamas’ Political Bureau member Saleh Al-Arouri. Consequentially, it was agreed that the presidential decree would be issued and that the two sides of the political division would transfer the resolution of the main conflict points arising from their division to the new government. After these bilateral talks, factional meetings on a larger scale took place in the Egyptian capital Cairo in order to prepare the general political atmosphere for the conduction of the elections.
Even though the decision to transfer the conflict points rather than delve into them and decisively resolve them before the elections (through, for example, the formulation of a transitional justice institution that compensates victims, redeems the harm perpetuated, prosecutes perpetrators, and publishes facts pertaining the division) was seen by many sides as a leap into the air, there was nonetheless a unanimous agreement on the urgency of holding the elections without delay in light of the politically, economically, socially and health-wise deteriorating states quo.
Second: potential postponement: the crisis of trust, and the preparation of public consciousness.
Shortly after the decree was issued, indicators of an extremely likely decision to postpone the elections started arising, the first of were proclamations on the very issuance day of the decree that stated that later postponement was “very likely.”
On the one hand, such discourse reflects the crisis of
trust between Palestinian citizens, their political system, political classes,
and the national movement after long years of inactivity and a direct and bitter
consequence of the post-division destruction that has been directed at formal
institutions, good governance practices, and national legitimacy. On the other
hand, it is a motivated step perpetuated by centers of power who have found
that their personal interests clash what that of the public and the conduction
of the elections and hence exploited the crisis of trust
– between the rulers and citizens- to
prepare public consciousness for the prospect of postponement.
Hence, this potential postponement of the elections deepens Palestinian citizens’ distrust in the political system even further. The step may cause an unfixable fracture in an already unstable relationship between the two sides and cultivate the belief that the political system is of a neo-patriarchal nature. That is, it endeavors to fulfill the interests of an exclusive and isolated group of powerful citizens, assigns offices on the basis of political loyalty, marginalizes the principles of citizenship and equality, and completely flouts the constitution and public interest.
It is worth mentioning that on the 4th of March, 2021 the president issued Decree Law No. (9) of the year 2021, which ordered the postponement of elections in union, associations, and civil organizations. The decree law stated that: “notwithstanding any other legislation or legal provision, elections that are legally required to be conducted within this period are postponed for 6 months of the effective date of this Unions, Associations, and Civil Organizations Elections Decree Law, which shall take effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.” The issuance of this decree law was accompanied without any clarification or mention of the underlying reasons, which was particularly strange especially in light of the announced intent to hold public legislative (parliamentary) and presidential elections and since elections in union, associations, and civil organizations would push further the promotion of public democracy before the elections. Such a step can be read as a negative indicator of what is expected to come next regarding public elections.
Third: the periodicity principle: why is an entire people’s constitutional right infringed upon by exclusive, partisan, and interest-oriented talks?
In light of a political scene characterized with hesitancy and indecisiveness, periodicity has been absent from Palestinian elections since the inception of the formal Palestinian national entity. From the perspective of democratic practices, the conduction of elections exclusively within the limits of partisan and factional agreements, which has been done repeatedly in the Palestinian case, is unusual since the periodicity of elections in accordance with constitutionally set due dates is a legal obligation and a component of democracy that is as fundamental as political engagement, a free civil sphere, social dialogue, guarantee of human rights and public liberties, the principle of the separation between legislative, executive, and judicial authorities, peaceful transition of authority, political multiplicity, democratic constitutions, the right in peaceful assembly, the spread of the democracy and human rights culture, and the implementation of the principle of the rule of law.
From the perspective of international legislation, the essence of the legislative guarantee of democratic practices is embodied in the world’s most important document in this regard, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations’ General Assembly on the 10th of December 1948 in Paris. Article (21) of the Declaration stated that: “the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.” Similar statements were affirmed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
On the national level, the Palestinian Basic Law stated in Article (2) that “the people are the source of power, which shall be exercised through the legislative, executive and judicial authorities, based upon the principle of separation of powers…” Article (5) of the same Basic Law states that “the governing system in Palestine shall be a democratic parliamentary system, based upon political and party pluralism. The President of the National Authority shall be directly elected by the people. The government shall be accountable to the President and to the Palestinian Legislative Council.” Furthermore, the second and fourth paragraphs of Article (2) of the 2005 Elections Law No. (9) respectively state that “the presidential office term shall be four years subject to re-election for only two consecutive terms” and “the council shall serve for a four year term commencing from the election date thereof. Elections shall be held periodically every four year.” Additionally, the first paragraph of Article (4) of the Local Councils Elections Law No. 10 of 2005 stipulates that “local elections shall be held in all local councils on the same day, once every four years upon a decision issued by the Cabinet.”
Going back to the Basic Law, Article (26) reaffirmed individuals’ and groups’ right to participation in politics by stipulating that they are entitled to the following rights:
The Article was followed by other supporting articles like Article (34) on the election of the President of the National Authority and Article (47) on the Election of the Legislative Council. According to all of these constitutional texts, elections are a legal right and are not an act of charity bestowed upon the public by any faction according to its whims. Instead, it ought to be held periodically and must be maintained as the essence of the principle stating that the people are the source of all authorities.
The intentional deactivation of elections perpetuated by influential political factions may amount to a form of political corruption. It is rather strange that these influential political parties agree to hold the elections only according to their desires, as a consequence of pressure exerted by their allies or opponents, or after they make estimates concerning their popularity and winning chances! The logic of periodicity dictates that authority is returned to the people who then punish, withdraw, or renew the legitimacy of the political powers they had previously selected after assessing their performance.
The postponement of the elections and the practices that reinforce it are an escape, a leap into the air even, by these political factions from their internal, organizational, and factional crises and an act of transfer of these crises to the already exhausted and overloaded Palestinian public. Many factions were also motivated by the fact that polls have shown that their projected seats in the upcoming elections are a lot fewer than what their organizational and popular scales usually yield. What these political powers should have done instead was solve their internal problems and renew the democratic character of their internal ranks rather than push for the de-activation of the political process and infringe upon the entire public interest in fear of internal collapse.
Fourth: the potential danger of postponing and/or cancelling the elections.
The Palestinian public is experiencing a group of dramatic political, social, and economic changes that may be the most critical in its modern history. The Palestinian political system suffers from numerous complex problems, the most prominent of which is the continuous internal political, legislative, and institutional division which has led to the presence of citizens with differing rights and obligations in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and deepened the state of fragmentation from which the Palestinian population has always suffered.
Reading the Palestinian scene, the currently weak state of civil peace and social cohesion may be further exacerbated by a decision to postpone the elections and hence halt the renewal of national legitimacies. The postponement may also have destructive consequences on the trust expressed by Palestinian citizens towards the political system, political class, the national movement, and the political powers involved in it. The distrust in political powers would particularly grow because the public had been told that their unanimous agreement and endorsement served as the basis for the issuance of the Elections Decree Law in the first law.
On the other hand, we must not forget that the Palestinian political legitimacy requires renewal by the public within a constitutional deadline and that the Palestinian parliament, which has a constitutional legislative and a monitoring mandate, has been de-activated for a long time. Therefore, the continuous postponement of the elections would mean the persistence of the state of political void which would have extremely dangerous consequences internally and internationally (the international community may start to view the Palestinian leadership as lacking in legitimacy).
Additionally, the principles of separation between the authorities, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, equality of opportunity, citizenship, political participation and multiplicity, social justice, empowerment of the youth, and the promotion of women’s participation would all be tremendously compromised and harmed by a decision to postpone the elections.
Fifth: Jerusalem as a pretext: the democratization vs. national liberation dilemma.
The first (1993) and second (1995) Oslo Accords have created tremendous complexities for Palestinian Jerusalemites who live under complete control of the Israeli occupation in East Jerusalem. The transitional period, which was supposed to conclude with a final resolution after 5 years by 1999, has continued to this day and in the process exacerbated the complexities. Palestinian residents of Jerusalem participated through the Israeli post offices in the 1999 Palestinian legislative elections, the 2005 presidential elections, and the 2006 legislative elections as a symbolic move in accordance with the Oslo accords.
The Interim Agreement signed with the Israeli occupation in Washington on the 28th of September 1995 states that the voting process takes place in East Jerusalem via post offices affiliated with the Israeli Postal Authority whereas the rest of the citizens must vote at the outskirts of the city. The occupation insisted that elections be held in Jerusalem 1, under complete Israeli control, only through Israeli post offices. The occupation’s representatives also insisted that votes be sent using post envelopes that do not display any Palestinian logos or symbols and that the numbers of voters not exceed the absorptive capacity of only 5 post offices that were designated for the 1996 elections and were later expanded to 6 for the 2006 elections.
Due to these severe restrictions, only 5327 Palestinian Jerusalemites voted via post offices during the 1996 Palestinian legislative and presidential elections. In the 2006 legislative elections, only 6300 cast their votes according to data documented by the Palestinians Central Elections Commission. Only hundreds of Palestinian Jerusalemites from Jerusalem 1voted in Palestinian polls in Jerusalem 2. The occupation system did not stop at these simultaneously humiliating and restrictive measures. Rather, Israeli police checkpoints were heavily set up at the entrances of post office, turning them into what looked like military bases, and widely circulated rumors that the Jerusalem ID would be pulled from those who vote in order to psychologically intimidate them.
The point here is not to indulge in an endless argument regarding the Oslo Accords which yielded these circumstances. Nonetheless, it is worth mentioning that “Israel,” the occupying power did not honor the agreement even at the level of allowing the presence of post boxes despite the already humiliating nature of such a process. The agreement regarding the elections in the Oslo Accords also showcases the fragility of the Palestinian side since the beginning of its involvement in talks with the occupation authorities, which has led some to place the responsibility of the current failure onto them.
Nonetheless, and even though the discourse calling for the postponement of the elections because of Jerusalem only arose after Fatah failed to participate in the parliamentary elections with a unified list, the case of Jerusalem is being seriously presented as a sufficient reason for the actual postponement of the elections.
In the previous years, the Palestinian elections have raised many questions pertaining to Palestinians in Jerusalem. These questions included alternatives to occupy the position of the political system in case elections are postponed in order to follow up on the city’s affairs and its population in their struggle against efforts to judaize, annex, demolish their parts of the city and the daily assaults of the occupation system comprised of soldiers, police, and settlers. These questions are connected to deeper questions regarding what members of the Palestinian Legislative Council in the former years have offered to the city, how “Israel” would allow members of the Council and the Palestinian Authority to operate in the city especially after the Trump administration recognized it as the unified capital of “Israel” and moved the American embassy there, what the Palestinian Authority offers as an independent entity to the city, and the extent to which the participation of Palestinians in Jerusalem in the elections impacts it as a whole process.
All of these questions lead to a fundamental question which Palestinians must confront and whose answer must serve as the basis of their political approach. The question is: are Palestinians in a pase of national liberation or a phase of state building and democratization? Progress at any level is impossible without the transcendence of these four overlapping entities: the revolution, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Palestinian Authority, and the State of Palestine.
Sixth: What should be done?
Many ideas and scenarios to organize the elections in Jerusalem are proposed. These include the exertion of pressure on the international community so that it in turn pressures the occupation into allowing the conduction of elections in accordance with the Oslo Accords and other former agreements, the placement of voting booths in United Nations centers and European embassies, the placement of voting booths in churches, mosques, and the streets hence tuning the election issue into a battle and a full-on confrontation with the occupation rooted in Palestinian Jerusalemites’ right to democratic processes, the organization of the elections by international delegations who would supervise the process without any external intervention (which would showcase the fact that Palestinians are deprived of sovereignty over their occupied land), and other scenarios and proposals.
The Central Elections Commission has accumulated, by way of its long experience, integrity, and earned trust at the partisan and popular levels, enough experience to hold elections despite the geo-political complexities in Jerusalem. Even though the Commission’s field of work is technical and the matter here is essentially political, its logistic expertise could be employed in the proposition of new ideas regarding holding the elections in Jerusalem. Civil society has also proposed numerous initiatives and solutions to hold the elections in Jerusalem. There are even alternatives if the occupation authorities insist on their refusal to hold the elections and even if they assault voters, confiscate voting booths…etc, which is a real possibility given the occupation’s mode of conduct. In such cases, the electoral lists and Central Elections Commission can form an agreement whereby Palestinians’ votes in Jerusalem (set at 7000 votes for example) are divided equally among all the lists, or the Central Elections Commission can provide alternative voting centers at the outskirts of the city.
Regardless of the form the elections may take, Palestinian elections are a necessity that cannot be postponed and must simultaneously be held in all of the 1967 Palestinian Territories including Jerusalem. The Palestinian approach should not be concerned with the postponement of the elections and solidifying the dire circumstances put in place by the occupation. Instead, it must endeavor to formulate a mechanism whereby elections are held in Jerusalem and the rest of Palestinian cities in a direct challenge to these circumstances. Assuming that the elections do indeed end up being postponed because of Jerusalem and regardless of this pretext’s validity or credibility, the immediate question that springs up and the answer to which the political system must provide is this: what happens after postponement? What if “Israel,” the occupying power, persists in its refusal to allow Palestinian elections to be held in the city? Should we imagine then a Palestinian state without elections forever? These questions must drive the political system to think deeply and consider whether the postponement of elections in Jerusalem and submission to the occupation’s desire to not hold the elections in the city is the ideal step to oppose the Deal of the Century and the current circumstances or if directly confronting the occupation on the ground achieves that objective.