Elections without politics

Writer: Dr. Yad Al-Barghout

There is a lot of truth in saying that many of the general topics that the Palestinians have been discussing for quite some time are out of context and aimed at perpetuating the status quo, however harsh it seems. It has to do with a policy that aims to lead public opinion, not only to misjudge, but to completely distract the public from their reality and what is happening around them and against them (he calls Andalusia if Aleppo is under siege). This is about the topic of elections, which is talked about a lot these days.

Imagine the plight of the Palestinians in the midst of brutal wars in the region, serious attempts to remake the Middle East, genocide that has affected a significant portion of the population, land confiscations and signs of ethnic cleansing that affect another portion, and at a time when the Palestinian middle class is fast becoming the lowest class after poverty. There is no “voice above the voice of the election”; Officials prepare logistically for its implementation, politicians make lists and warn of postponement this time, “transparent” people emphasize the necessity of its integrity, intellectuals discuss participation or boycott, and the “beneficiary” watches all this contentedly and does what he wants and most importantly.

What “psychological” condition do Palestinians live in? After a hundred years of occupation, they now have every right to reconsider this situation, because they seem to live in a state of collective “denial” that has led them to a state of normalization to the point of danger, so that they have begun to assume that the future, whatever happens, will resemble the past, and therefore all they have to do is continue as they are, without paying attention. It seems that they have created for themselves, or have created for themselves a “false” collective consciousness in which they are engaged. They themselves are or are preoccupied with it, while they are not facing serious threats to their existence and their behavior is detached not only from their real interests, but also from the reality in which they live.

Is it any wonder that in such a situation there is such an insistence on elections and dealing with them “enthusiastically”? Do Palestinian electoral and democratic “traditions” demand that elections be held no matter what, even though the actual traditions in the field are precisely the opposite? Because these elections have been postponed and bypassed many times and for various reasons.
In the Palestinian situation, where there are many actors and only one effect, who wants elections? Who wants it, why? Is he interested in its consequences, or just leading, or maybe just talking about it? So, isn’t it fair to ask, after the recent two local government and Fatah elections, what has been achieved? Is the situation better after that than it was before? And do the results lead to a more determined approach to the next election? Is the issue of expediency relevant to what Palestinians in general are doing? Or are they content with what is required of them no matter what?

The Palestinians’ preoccupation with what is not the foundation abounds in their modern history, and what is the foundation in the Palestinian situation is not necessarily something they always resolve. Any simple overview of what the Palestinians are preoccupied with (occupied or totally occupied) and comparing it to Israeli concerns is astounding. For years, Palestinians have been busy talking about things that seem completely out of context (just talk); They were busy negotiating while the settlement went on, reconciliation and settlement went on, and institution-building, partition, legitimacy, international recognition, clearance, wages, so-and-so and two, and gasoline, and last but not least, elections. It’s… in the Israeli language, discuss what you want, or take the matter and discuss it and leave us what we want, with little or no fuss. On the contrary, they are not happy with it because they and the Palestinians do “whatever they want” and work to address them, to make it easier for them to do whatever they want.

This in its “tragic” aspect is beneficial for both sides. The Palestinians seem to be busy and it is useful to “justify” their existence, to ease their “conscience”, to “analyze” the situation (allowed) and sometimes to make “plans”, while the Israelis are busy with their project of settlement, murder, wars, occupation, dismantling and reassembly.

After this discussion of the issue of “choices” in Palestine, it is useful to clarify the position on it based on the concept of Palestinianism, since it is a philosophy that frees the world from the state of domination and where Palestine is the basis of the world’s state of knowledge.

The question of Palestinianism regarding the elections is not whether they will be held or not, nor is it necessary to participate, but what national project do these elections serve? The beginning of this question is based on the reality of Palestine, in which there is no more politics. Do elections matter in light of the ‘death’ or absence of politics?

To be clear, the absence of politics does not mean the absence of institutions, parties, or any action of a “political” nature, including elections. On the contrary, it means that real political space has been largely reduced, and Palestinian action is governed more by external structures than by the will of independent Palestine.

This can be explained from several angles; In this context, politics is the ability to make decisions related to the collective destiny, but if it turns into an administration limited to the management of daily life (wages, services, time of day…) without the ability to resolve issues of sovereignty, borders and land, then it is not considered politics at all.

Politics does not exist when occupation monopolizes sovereign decisions, controls land, borders, traffic, economy and population registers. Thus, the occupation preserves the essence of politics and leaves the Palestinians on the administrative sidelines. Here, Palestinian politics, if they exist, revolve around the boundaries of the stronger party. This rotation does not reflect a desire to escape the situation, so much as it is a mechanism for living with it.

Politics also requires multiple options and alternatives for society to overcome problems. Either the options collapse, or the basics like statehood, resistance, settlement, economy and everything related to the future of the Palestinian people are limited by the structure of the occupation and international attitudes, then the competition becomes at best about managing reality, not changing it, which does not require elections or much of what the Palestinians are talking about.

The fateful decisions regarding Palestine are made by the occupying and global hegemonic forces, and the role of Palestine is mainly limited to trying to adapt to it. This requires returning the Palestinian to a libertarian subject that reclaims politics in its true sense, that is, redefines it as a historical actor capable of carrying out a new liberating project, not just a party that reacts to what is imposed on it.

Based on this theoretical framework of Palestinianism, the evaluation of participation or boycott, as is now the case with elections, is measured by the extent to which it restores politics as an act of liberation. Participation, like boycotting, is not politics in itself and is not considered a political achievement simply because it is an election. If elections are held in a structure that lacks sovereignty and cannot change the balance of power, then it may be a reproduction of reality rather than a change, or a demand for change for the worse, which is more likely in this case.

Boycott too. Simple abstention from voting is not considered a political act unless it is connected to an alternative project that reorganizes society or builds new liberating instruments. If it does not lead to this, it is to withdraw from the public sphere and nothing more. The question then is not participation or boycott, but whether this option will increase the Palestinians’ ability to regain political action or continue its integration into the occupation’s governance system, which in one way or another has resulted from the previous Palestinian experience.

This experience proved that many parties, participating or boycotting, remained captive to the same framework. Participants compete for authority with limited powers and who will carry out the ‘mission’, and boycotts often do not represent an alternative institutional vision, so the dispute between them is over means rather than policy redefinition.

From this perspective, real political action begins when the Palestinian Authority achieves a national project that restores the Palestinians’ ability to influence their future, whether elections are used as a tool, bypassed, or become an obstacle to achieving it. The point, then, is that elections are not a criterion of politics, just as their boycott is not a criterion of resistance. The criterion is whether the option reflects the existing structure, which is likely what will happen, it seems to be “designed” for it, or whether it opens up new horizons for liberation.