Canada And The Palestinian Authority
Much to Canada’s disappointment and disillusionment, Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas recently postponed legislative and presidential elections, which were to be held on November 28 and early next year.
Abbas, who has been the president of the PA since 2005, announced that elections in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem will take place in September 2027. This marks the second time since 2021 that they have been shelved.
He cited Israeli restrictions on the freedom of movement, settlement expansion, security factors and humanitarian conditions in the Gaza Strip as reasons for the postponement.
Canadian Foreign Minister Anita Anand, along with her counterparts in Britain, France and Australia, expressed deep regret and pressed Abbas to take whatever steps are necessary to hold legislative and presidential elections “without further delay.”
“An entire generation of Palestinians has reached adulthood without the opportunity to choose their elected representatives,” she said. “This delay will be deeply disappointing and once again deprives Palestinians of the opportunity to vote and will further erode public confidence in democratic institutions.”
Fifteen months ago, the leaders of Canada, Britain, France and Australia recognized Palestinian statehood. In making this announcement, Canada deviated from policy. Its position had been that recognition should come only after Israel and the PA had reached a formal peace agreement.
More than a decade has elapsed since Israel and the PA last engaged in negotiations. These talks unfolded in 2013 and 2014 and ended inconclusively, leading to the political paralysis that exists today.
In announcing his support for a Palestinian state, in the face of firm Israeli objections, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said that his approach was predicated on the PA’s “commitment to much needed reforms.”
One of his conditions was that the PA would hold general elections in 2026 to advance the prospect of a two-state solution, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition government unequivocally rejects.
Last year, Anand said that credible elections are essential for building the institutional foundations of “a viable two-state solution, which is the only path to lasting peace and security for both Israel and Palestine.”
The Globe and Mail, in a sharply-worded editorial on October 14, spelled out what the consequences should be in light of the PA’s broken promise: “The path forward is clear. If Abbas and the PA do not reverse the decision to put off elections, then Canada should reverse its decision to extend diplomatic recognition. This is necessary for two reasons: to do what can be done to preserve the hope of a peace process leading to two states, and to preserve Canada’s wider diplomatic credibility.”
The newspaper added, “The rejection of elections by the PA gives the Netanyahu government, or a less obstructionist successor, all the excuse it needs to avoid any diplomatic engagement…”
Abbas became president of the PA in January 2005, following the death of Yasser Arafat. His four-year presidential term was due to expire in 2009, but he has remained in office. Since then, his government has repeatedly postponed elections, restricted opposition activity and concentrated power in the presidency. In April 2021, Abbas cancelled elections in East Jerusalem, apparently fearing that his Fatah faction would lose power.
The postponement created a serious problem for anyone who supports a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel.
A sovereign state requires more than international recognition. It needs legitimate leaders, free elections, functioning institutions, public confidence, the rule of law, and the ability to exercise authority over its territory.
The PA’s prolonged failure to hold elections weakens its claim to speak democratically for Palestinians. And it raises a practical question: why should Palestinians trust another election date when previous commitments have not been fulfilled?
Hamas’s separate rule in Gaza compounds that problem, while Israel’s occupation and settlement expansion in the West Bank constrain the territorial and political conditions in which Palestinian self-government could develop.
Municipal elections in the West Bank a few months ago offered a glimmer of hope. The Carter Center found that they were technically well administered, but that the wider democratic process was hampered by the Israeli occupation and limited political competition.
Abbas, 90, and his associates have had years to negotiate a way forward, rebuild political institutions and establish a credible election timetable. Instead, his presidency has continued long after his four-year electoral mandate expired. In short, there have been no presidential elections since 2005 and no legislative elections since 2006.
The two rival Palestinian governing authorities have not established a normal, unified democratic system. Holding elections raises difficult questions: Would Hamas accept an unfavorable result? Would Fatah surrender power? Who would control the security forces and enforce the outcome?
Israeli military operations, restrictions of movement and of Palestinian political activity, settlement expansion, policies that undermine Palestinian political institutions and arrests of Palestinian legislators have all impeded Palestinian self-government. Israel’s refusal to permit ordinary PA electoral activity in East Jerusalem is relevant because Palestinians regard it as their future capital.
Yet Israel’s role should not become a blanket excuse for the PA’s internal failures. Abbas has a responsibility to make elections possible when obstacles arise.
Observers have pointed out that the PA has evolved into an entrenched, increasingly authoritarian political state, while the Israeli occupation, the split between Palestinian factions, and the absence of a credible political process have made democratic renewal more difficult.
There is an international dimension as well. Foreign governments have supported the PA financially and diplomatically, partly because they regard it as a potential partner in a two-state solution. That support has not produced sufficient pressure to ensure regular elections, effective oversight or a genuine transfer of power.
The problem is compounded by substantial evidence of corruption, patronage and weak accountability within the PA. It has developed a system in which political connections can matter more than transparent rules and in which independent oversight is problematic.
Political loyalty, patronage and favoritism can influence appointments, access to public-sector jobs, and the distribution of government resources. Such patronage makes officials dependent on political superiors rather than on impartial institutions.
Independent scrutiny of officials and public institutions is limited, resulting in weak transparency and accountability. When journalists, activists or political opponents face intimidation, it becomes harder to investigate suspected abuses, expose conflicts of interest or demand explanations for government spending.
Right now, the PA has fallen short of these lofty objectives. It remains to be seen whether Canada will penalize the PA for its glaring deficiencies.
