The elections were announced, but the street was not busy... and they were postponed, so why did no one ask?

author

Muammar Youssef Al-Awiwi

There is a paradox worth considering in the Palestinian scene: the door to candidacy for legislative elections was opened, lists and candidates moved, and organizational and political calculations began, but the Palestinian street did not show interest or public debate commensurate with the importance of this entitlement. Then it was announced that the elections would be postponed, and the same scene happened again. A relative absence of public debate on a decision affecting the future of Palestinian political life.

Has the Palestinian street become indifferent to the elections, or have its daily concerns become too great to leave room for it to care about them?

This scene cannot be separated from the reality of the citizen who faces accumulated economic and living crises, and lives under the burden of occupation, war, unemployment, and anxiety for the future of his children. But the deeper question is: Has interest in elections declined because citizens no longer see them as a tool capable of changing their reality?

The danger is not only that interest in elections is weak, but that their presence or absence becomes something that changes nothing in people’s expectations, or in their confidence in the ability of institutions to address their crises.

The nomination was supposed to open a national debate about programs, competencies, and the legislature's role in legislation, oversight, and accountability. The postponement was supposed to open a discussion about its causes and repercussions, the necessary guarantees for holding elections, and the future of Palestinian democratic life.

But where are the parties that are supposed to involve people in decision-making? Where are the media, elites, universities, and civil society organizations in discussing the matter beyond the names of the candidates to the future of the citizen and his rights?

We should not hold the citizen alone responsible for this absence. The citizen does not need to hear that elections are important, but rather he needs to see how they can affect his life, and to feel that his voice is capable of bringing about real change.

A citizen's livelihood concerns are not separate from his national priorities. Work, education, health, freedom, dignity, and building the future are national issues par excellence. But the problem begins when the citizen feels that these issues do not find their way into political programs, and that his voice does not leave a tangible impact on the decisions that determine his life.

What is happening should be a warning bell to the Palestinian political forces, not an occasion for exchanging accusations. What is required is to rebuild confidence, renew political life, and convince people that elections are not just lists and seats, but rather a means of participation, accountability, and shaping the future.

It is not enough to ask: When will the elections be held? Rather, we have to ask: How did we reach a stage where holding or postponing elections does not seem to be an issue worthy of broad public debate?

People facing crises do not need their questions to be silenced, but rather institutions that give these questions meaning, and political life that makes participation a means of change and accountability.

What is more dangerous than postponing elections is that we become accustomed to postponing our right to question.