By Taghreed Saadeh
On January 25, 2006, the second legislative elections were held in the occupied Palestinian territories since the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority. The results shocked both the Palestinian public and the international community, as the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, secured an unexpected majority, relegating Fatah, the movement with historical dominance, to second place for the first time.
Figures and Results
The Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) consisted of 132 seats. Hamas, running under the “Change and Reform” list, won 74 seats. Fatah obtained only 45 seats. The remaining seats were divided among other forces and independents: the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine won 3 seats, the Palestinian National Initiative 2 seats, the Palestinian People’s Party 1 seat, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine 1 seat, and independents 4 seats.
Voting Percentages
Looking at the overall vote percentages, the difference between the two main movements was not very large. Hamas’s success was not due to an absolute popular majority, but rather to the electoral system combined with Fatah’s fragmentation.
A total of 11 lists contested the PLC elections in 2006, but only 6 succeeded in winning seats:
Change and Reform (Hamas): 440,409 votes → 29 seats
Fatah: 410,554 votes → 28 seats
Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa (PFLP): 42,101 votes → 3 seats
Al-Badil (coalition of DFLP, PPP, FIDA, and independents including Fatah members): 28,973 votes → 2 seats
Independent Palestine (Mustafa Barghouti and independents, including Fatah members): 26,909 votes → 2 seats
The Third Way: 23,862 votes → 2 seats
Freedom and Social Justice: 7,127 votes → 0 seats
Freedom and Independence: 4,398 votes → 0 seats
Martyr Abu Abbas List: 3,011 votes → 0 seats
National Coalition for Justice and Democracy (Wa’ad): 1,806 votes → 0 seats
Palestinian Justice List: 1,723 votes → 0 seats
The Electoral System: Mixed Proportional and District-Based
The 2005 Election Law adopted a mixed system: half of the seats (66) were elected through proportional lists, while the other half (66) were contested in individual constituencies.
In the proportional list system, Fatah and Hamas performed relatively close. However, in the district system, Hamas gained the upper hand. The movement fielded unified candidates in each district, while Fatah ran multiple candidates competing against one another within the same constituency. This led to a fragmentation of Fatah’s votes. Had Fatah consolidated its vote behind single candidates, it might have surpassed Hamas in popular support and possibly secured the majority.
Implications of the Results
Given the context of 2006, many voters saw their choice of Hamas as an expression of rejection of corruption within the Palestinian Authority and misconduct by some Fatah leaders. Hamas also demonstrated greater discipline in managing its campaign and unifying its candidates. Internal division within Fatah was the decisive factor that tipped the balance of results.
In 2007, Hamas carried out an armed takeover of Gaza, ultimately establishing exclusive control over the Strip.
Hamas’s victory in the 2006 elections was not a sweeping mandate but rather the product of a complex electoral formula, combining a dual voting system with Fatah’s internal missteps. Nearly two decades later, the consequences of those elections continue to cast a heavy shadow over the deeply divided Palestinian political landscape.
46 Total Count
