Half Democracy… Zero Legitimacy

On a day that is supposed to be a democratic celebration, with eyes turned to the ballot boxes as the ultimate tool for renewing legitimacy, the ongoing municipal elections in Palestine reveal a sharp paradox: nearly half of the municipalities and village councils were decided by acclamation even before the ballot boxes were opened. It is as if the democratic process began and ended at the same time, reducing the popular voice to a disturbing collective silence.

The acclamation here is not merely a legal procedure but a complex political and social phenomenon, reflecting something deeper than mere local consensus. It expresses the retreat of organized political action and the absence of genuine competition that gives democracy its meaning. When nomination doors are closed to a single list, the question is no longer: who will win? But rather, why did no one even run?

The reasons are multiple, yet not innocent. The first is a general sense of frustration with public work, where local councils are seen more as a burden than as an opportunity to influence. In light of scarce resources, restricted powers, and complex relations with central authorities, many hesitate to engage in what they see as a preordained losing experience. The second reason is the fear of the social and political costs of competition, especially in villages governed by delicate familial balances, where candidacy could escalate into an open conflict threatening civil peace. The third, and most dangerous reason, is the dominance of local powers – political or familial – that work to produce a "forced consensus" excluding competitors before they even appear, making acclamation the result of prior engineering rather than free expression.

However, the abstention from presenting competing lists does not exempt anyone from responsibility. The powers that chose to withdraw or remain silent, under the pretext of realism or avoidance of loss, have practically contributed to entrenching this reality. Democracy is not built by withdrawal, but by confrontation, even if it is unequal. Engaging in an electoral battle, even with high chances of loss, is in itself a political act that accumulates awareness and breaks the monopoly.

The paradox is that those who won by acclamation do not face a lighter test but a heavier one. The absence of competition does not mean the absence of accountability; rather, it raises its ceiling to unprecedented heights. The citizen who was not granted the opportunity to choose will not easily grant a certificate of approval. Here, acclamation shifts from shortcutting the path to the beginning of a more arduous road: the road to prove merit without electoral cover.

The first demand from the lists that won by acclamation is to break the illusion of consensus. The absence of competitors does not mean that everyone is supportive. Silence is not always a sign of approval; it may also signify fear, indifference, or deferred rejection. Therefore, these lists must descend from the illusion of "general acceptance" to the reality of "daily testing," treating society as a critical partner rather than a clapping audience.

Secondly, transparency is no longer an option, but a condition for legitimacy. The council that has not undergone the ballot box test must face the people daily. Publishing budgets, clarifying spending, announcing projects, and providing periodic reports are not administrative luxuries but tools for rebuilding lost trust. In the absence of voting, transparency becomes the alternative ballot box.

Thirdly, involving citizens in decision-making is no longer a democratic luxury but a political necessity. Councils should take the initiative to form advisory committees representing various groups: youth, women, professionals, and neighborhood representatives. Local governance is not managed by a single mind but by multiple minds. Without this openness, acclamation turns into isolation, not consensus.

Fourthly, efficiency must come before loyalty. Acclamation is often built on familial or political balances, but managing public affairs should not be run on courtesies. Winning lists must reshape their executive teams based on experience and capability, not affiliation. Citizens are not held accountable for intentions but for outcomes: better services, cohesive infrastructure, and tangible solutions to their daily problems.

Fifthly, courage in decision-making is required. Councils that come to power by acclamation may sometimes lean towards excessive caution for fear of upsetting the balances that brought them there, but this caution can become paralysis. What is required is responsible bravery: making difficult decisions when necessary, even if unpopular, as long as they serve the public good.

Sixthly, building mechanisms for self-accountability is crucial. In the absence of a real opposition within the council, one must be created internally. Oversight committees, periodic evaluations, openness to the media and civil society are all tools that prevent the slide into laxity or corruption. A strong council is not the one that cannot be criticized, but the one that knows how to correct itself.

As for the citizen, they are no longer just a voter summoned every four years, but a permanent partner in oversight. Acclamation does not mean the end of their role but the beginning of a new responsibility. They must monitor, question, suggest, and exert pressure. Councils that came without competition need a society that does not remain silent.

Ultimately, what we are witnessing today is not merely incomplete elections but a double test: for the councils that arrived unchallenged, and for the society that did not compete. Either acclamation turns into a moment of awareness that redefines responsibility and accountability, or it remains additional evidence of the erosion of political life.

Ballots without voices may produce authority… but they do not produce legitimacy. And legitimacy, in all cases, is not granted… but built.