JANUARY 05 NEWSLETTER
[back to newsletter page]

The Palestinian Elections: Fair and Free

General Context

On January 9, 2005, Palestinians went to the polls to choose a new president to succeed the late President Yasser Arafat. The elections though taking place under Israeli occupation which imposed security measures that impeded easy access to the polling stations, were nevertheless conducted in a manner far better than most Arab countries. The entire process was conducted in an orderly manner and included voter education and prompt responses to complaints.

Although the elections were not totally free from problems, particularly in East Jerusalem where Israeli forces obstructed the voting process, none of these were of sufficient significance to justify any claim that the elections were not free and fair.

Perhaps that major weakness of the process was that the official media demonstrated a clear bias for the Fatah candidate. For example, the official Palestine TV channel, allocated 94% of its electoral campaign coverage to Mahmoud Abbas. Favoring Abbas the Israelis restricted the freedom of movement of some of his competitors during the campaigning period in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Several campaigns were hindered when candidates attempted to cross through the extensive maze of checkpoints. As an example, Dr. Mustafa Al Barghouthi was arrested by Israeli security at checkpoints twice during his campaign.

Explicit Violations In Jerusalem

Voting in East Jerusalem was especially problematic due to the closure of Palestinian polling centers by Israeli authorities at the start of voter registration in September 2004. The premature closure of these registration centers on September 13, 2004, only 9 days after the initiation of the registration drive, is attributed to low registration rates as it allowed only 5,376 of a total of 200,000 eligible voters from East Jerusalem to vote in Israeli post offices throughout the city. This number amounts to less than 3%.

Most of the violations, irregularities and confusions on election day occurred in the post offices under the direct control of the Israeli government in Eastern Jurelum . For example, in all post offices most voters including those registered at the respective post office, were denied access to voting booths. Voters, whose names weren’t found in voter lists, were told to go to civil registry centers in the greater district of Jerusalem, designed for residents of East Jerusalem. However, most of the voters showed reluctance to travel the minimum distance of 15 km through checkpoints to exercise their right to vote. In addition, pre-election rumors spread by certain Israeli media sources that residents of East Jerusalem will lose their special privileges if they chose to participate dissuaded potential voters. Further irregularities included: the use of non-transparent ballot boxes, a lack of privacy for voters obliged to cast their votes in clear view of the postal clerks, and the denial of access to polling stations to international observers accredited by CEC.

West Bank: Better off
Unlike East Jerusalem, West Bank ICDS delegates did not report violations in voter access to polling stations nor confusion or discrepancy in voter registration lists. The entire voting process proceeded smoothly and in accordance to CEC regulations including the presence of CEC officials, representatives of presidential candidates, and local and international observers.

Tally Process

The tally process was transparent; it occurred in the presence of international and local observers and representatives of presidential candidates. These same officials checked the ballots after the tally was complete. Furthermore, all representatives of presidential candidates oversaw and signed the tally protocol. The protocol indicating the results was then placed outside the polling station as public information. East Jerusalem was the only district where the tally of ballots did not occur at the polling stations in the presence of observers and candidate representatives. After the closure of polling centers, the ballot boxes were ferried by Israeli postal vehicles to CEC officials for tallying.

Conclusions

With the exception of East Jerusalem, no major systemic violations were reported. In this regard, ICDS along with other international observers including the European Union and the National Democratic Institute considered the 2005 Palestinian presidential elections a victory for democracy. Concern remains that candidates were not provided equal opportunity in electoral campaigning. A biased PNA and media endorsement of the Fatah candidate did not provide a level playing field to other candidates.

In addition, the fact that Hamas boycotted the elections may indicate that a significant proportion of the population did not voice its preference, especially in the Gaza Strip and in Hebron, where the movement experiences wide popularity. Furthermore, most eligible voters the ICDS delegates interviewed reported “a loss of faith in the democratic process” claiming that “Mahmoud Abbas’ victory was predetermined regardless of voters’ choices.” It is understandable that the elections were less than ideal given the fact that these elections were the first to occur in the Occupied Territories since 1996 and that, they took place in a climate of occupation, authoritarian rule and violence.

Free and fair contested elections are vital, yet insufficient, to a democracy. Hence, the 2005 presidential elections, however “successful”, do not present a complete solution to the Palestinian political impasse. It remains to be seen if the upcoming Palestinian parliamentary elections will bring to power a more diverse political spectrum in a genuine power-sharing scheme among the Palestinian factions, where power is not monopolized by Fatah.