The Palestinian Legislative Council elections: An opportunity or a trap?

The Palestinian Legislative Council elections have reignited the long-standing debate over the merits of participation versus boycott. The announcement of a broad coalition uniting Hamas and Dahlan, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s historical decision to take part in the elections, have also sparked reactions ranging from welcome to surprise to condemnation. So, do these elections represent an opportunity or a trap?

What is the purpose of elections?

Contrary to popular belief, elections are not a tool for change but for consolidation of a political order. Elections reflect the will of society but do not affect the material and cultural context that shapes that will. For example, the decisions made by the Ramallah Authority—such as employing large numbers of Palestinians and their families in patronage networks, accepting the Paris proposal to swamp the West Bank with debt, and its collaboration with the enemy—are all policies that have helped shape Palestinian society in the 1967 territories. Elections will not change these realities. Change lies in imposing policies that are the opposite of those that have been imposed—a point to which we will return in conclusion.

Accordingly, elections can be described as a “snapshot” of the state of society, rather than an act of change. They are a tool in the hands of political regimes to consolidate their legitimacy. That is why regimes cancel or postpone elections when they sense that society has changed in a way that might threaten their legitimacy, as has happened in Palestine and around the world. In rare cases, however, decision-makers misjudge the situation and hold elections that undermine their own legitimacy. This happened with the Ramallah Authority in 2005. It then quite simply decided to suspend the Legislative Council. Yes: elections do not change regimes.

To participate or to boycott?

This does not mean boycotting is necessarily the way to go. Elections are not a tool for change, but they are one of the arenas in which the authorities can be confronted within the context of a revolutionary process.

The decision to participate is determined not by theoretical imperatives but by a careful assessment of the circumstances. The circumstances surrounding today’s Legislative Council elections involve two main factors. On the one hand, the Legislative Council is an institution of the Palestinian Authority—that is, a remnant of the Oslo Accords.

Furthermore, the conditions for candidacy imply recognition of this normalizationist and defeatist project and the granting of legitimacy to it.

READ: US university students associate Israel with ‘genocide’ against Palestinians

On the other hand, these elections come after three years of genocide in which the enemy sought to eliminate Hamas once and for all. The enemy is spreading the narrative that Hamas is finished—militarily, politically, internationally, popularly, and morally. This narrative is echoed by a number of Palestinians, whether out of opportunism, frustration, or other reasons. Therefore, Hamas’s refusal to participate may reinforce the notion that it has been thrown out of the Palestinian political scene. Had Hamas and the Islamic and nationalist factions refrained from participating in the 2005 elections—indeed, had Fatah been left alone in the PLO!—things might have been different. But the decision to participate was made back then, and it is difficult not to interpret its boycott today as a retreat—that is, an implicit acknowledgment by Hamas that the enemy’s claim is valid.

Hamas would not be the only one affected by such a decision.

Whatever we think of its ideology, its administration of Gaza, and the Al-Aqsa Flood, Hamas—with its armed wing and organizational structure—is, in reality, one of the rare sources of strength available to the Palestinian people.

While it is true that its weapons were not enough to stop the bloodshed, but disarming it would leave the Palestinian people even more vulnerable, which is why the enemy insists on this demand. And while it is true that Hamas has been unable to break the blockade imposed on Gaza and secure basic necessities, the loss of its organizational capacity poses a real threat to Gaza, which is why the enemy targets its administrative officials on an almost daily basis.

Perhaps this situation is what tips the scales in favor of strong participation in the legislative elections. This explains Islamic Jihad’s historic decision and Hamas’s alliance with Dahlan. The goal is not so much to present a unified vision as it is to counter the enemy’s rhetoric regarding the end of Hamas and its efforts to eliminate it as a prelude to the elimination of all of Palestine.

The announcement of this broad alliance, on the one hand, and Fatah’s indecision, on the other, have shifted the equation from “Hamas is isolated” to “Fatah is isolated.” This may push Fatah to amend the conditions for candidacy or voting eligibility—or even to cancel the elections altogether. Indeed, elections are a tool in the hands of the regime.

Most importantly: Where is the plan?

While Palestinian leaders and elites regurgitate the decades-old rhetoric about pragmatic participation and the puritan boycott, Gaza continues to bleed and the West Bank continues to be Judaized. The enemy does not allow Knesset elections to distract it from proposing, discussing, adopting, and implementing political programs. So what about us?

What changes reality is not condemning it, but proposing an alternative to it. What is needed is a political project that views Palestine as one entity in the face of the enemy’s efforts to dismantle it, that works to build self-sufficiency in Gaza and the West Bank in the face of the blockade and displacement, that engages society in debate, decision-making, and resistance based on opposition to the occupation, and that mobilizes the capacities of Palestinians in arenas of resistance that influence the balance of power. For the elections to be an opportunity for progress rather than a trap that distracts us from what is more important, it is incumbent upon all forces, leaders, and elites—whether participating or boycotting—to formulate a plan to save Gaza and liberate Palestine and to work to impose it.

OPINION: Confronting the occupation’s violence strategically

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.