Written by: Hadeel Bazzar, a Palestinian Lawyer and Participant in the “Symposia II” Project
The constitutional decree issued by President Mahmoud Abbas has sparked a significant debate among legal experts and politicians, with sharply divided opinions. Some view the decree as a necessary measure to ensure the continuity of the Palestinian National Authority in the event of a presidential vacancy, while others see it as a clear violation of the amended Palestinian Basic Law, which serves as the constitutional framework for governance in Palestine. The central debate focuses on whether the decree contradicts existing constitutional provisions or serves as a special regulation designed to address a potential political vacuum.
The constitutional decree specifies that the President of the Palestinian National Council would temporarily assume the presidency of the Palestinian National Authority if the position becomes vacant in the absence of the Legislative Council. Critics argue that this contradicts the Basic Law, which designates the Speaker of the Legislative for this role. Supporters, however, contend that the decree addresses a legal gap unanticipated by the Basic Law—namely, the absence of the Legislative Council following its dissolution, as is the case today.
A key aspect of this decree is its reaffirmation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the supreme political authority of the Palestinian people. The decree strengthens the PLO’s role as the primary guarantor of a peaceful transfer of power in the absence of the Legislative Council. This reflects a recognition of the PLO’s legitimacy and its national and international acceptance as essential tools for addressing political dilemmas, particularly those concerning the mechanism of power transfer if the presidential position becomes vacant. These concerns have become increasingly urgent amid growing political challenges and the geographic and political division between the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Notably, the decree limits the term of the President of the National Council to 90 days, during which presidential elections must be held, with a one-time extension permitted if elections cannot occur as scheduled. However, the decree does not fully address practical challenges, such as the implications of failing to hold elections even after the extension. It also omits a solution to the primary obstacle of conducting elections: the voting mechanism for Jerusalemites, raising the likelihood that elections may not be held within the stipulated 180-day timeframe.
Given the difficult circumstances facing the Palestinian people, including ongoing aggression and deepening political and geographical divisions, this decree serves as a preemptive measure to avoid scenarios such as internal conflict or increasing fragmentation between the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In this context, the choice of the PLO as a guarantor to prevent a constitutional vacuum or political conflict is thus understandable, given its broad local and international acceptance. However, questions remain about the adequacy of the decree in addressing the complex legal and political challenges it seeks to resolve.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's views and not necessarily the Association's or donor's opinion.