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........

© Middle East Monitor