Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T16:32:05.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining Hamas's Changing Electoral Strategy, 1996–2006

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2013

Frode Løvlie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hamas, the most influential Islamist party in the occupied Palestinian territories, replaced its strategy of electoral boycott in 1996 with participation in 2006 – a change that is not explained in the literature. Assisted by theories of party change, the article seeks to fill this gap. The article demonstrates that the move from boycott to participation can largely be attributed to a change of dominant coalition. In line with the theoretical assumptions, environmental challenges and shocks altered the power–balance within Hamas, robbing the coalition dominating at the time of the boycott of its power and allowing a new faction to obtain dominance. This new dominant faction saw political participation as a legitimate avenue to pursue Hamas's cause, and its rise to power secured the change of strategy and participation in the 2006 elections.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 570 - 593
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Frode Løvlie is a researcher at Chr. Michelsen Institute and a PhD candidate in the Department of Comparative Politics at the University of Bergen. Contact email: [email protected].

References

Abu-Amr, Z. (1993), ‘Hamas: A Historical and Political Background’, Journal of Palestine Studies, 22(4): 5–19.Google Scholar
Abu-Amr, Z. (1994), ‘The View from Palestine: In the Wake of the Agreement’, Journal of Palestine Studies, 23(2): 75–83.Google Scholar
Abu-Amr, Z. (1997), ‘The Palestinian Legislative Council: A Critical Assessment’, Journal of Palestine Studies, 26(4): 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butenschøn, N. (1998), ‘The Oslo Agreement: From the White House to Jabal Abu Ghneim’, in G. Giacaman and D. Jørund Lønning (eds), After Oslo: New Realities, Old Problems (London: Pluto Press): 16–44.Google Scholar
Butenschøn, N.Vollan, K. (2006), Democracy in Conflict, NORDEM Special Report (Oslo: Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, University of Oslo).Google Scholar
Cardi, P. (2010), Hamas: From Resistance to Government? (Jerusalem: PASSIA).Google Scholar
Chehab, Z. (2007), Inside Hamas: The Untold Story of Militants, Martyrs and Spies (London: I.B. Tauris).Google Scholar
Cobban, H. (1984), The Palestinian Liberation Organisation: People, Power, and Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Collier, D.Mahon, J.E. Jr. (1993), ‘Conceptual “Stretching” Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis’, American Political Science Review, 87(4): 845–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CPRS (Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research) (2000), Polls, #1–#48 (Ramallah: Center for Palestine Research and Studies), www.pcpsr.org/survey/cprspolls.Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J.Wattenberg, M.P. (2000), ‘Unthinkable Democracy: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies’, in R.J. Dalton and M.P. Wattenberg (eds), Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, Comparative Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 3–18.Google Scholar
Erdmann, G. (2004), ‘Party Research: Western European Bias and the “African Labyrinth”’, Democratization, 11(3): 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, J. (2004), ‘What is a Case Study and What is it Good For?’, American Political Science Review, 98(2): 341–354.Google Scholar
Gloppen, S.Rakner, L. (2007) (eds), Globalization and Democratization: Challenges for Political Parties (Bergen: Fagbokforlaget).Google Scholar
Gunning, J. (2008), Hamas in Politics: Democracy, Religion, Violence (London: C. Hurst).Google Scholar
Gunther, R.Diamond, L. (2001), ‘Types and Functions of Parties’, in L.J. Diamond and R. Gunther (eds), Political Parties and Democracy (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press): 3–39.Google Scholar
Gunther, R.Diamond, L. (2003), ‘Species of Political Parties: A New Typology’, Party Politics, 9(2): 167–199.Google Scholar
Harmel, R.Janda, K. (1994), ‘An Integrated Theory of Party Goals and Party Change’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6(3): 259–287.Google Scholar
Hilal, J. (2006), ‘Hamas's Rise as Charted in the Polls, 1994–2005’, Journal of Palestine Studies, 35(3): 6–19.Google Scholar
Hroub, K. (2000), Hamas: Political Thought and Practice (Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies).Google Scholar
Hroub, K. (2004), ‘Hamas after Shaykh Yasin and Rantisi’, Journal of Palestine Studies, 33(4): 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hroub, K. (2006a), ‘A “New Hamas” through its New Documents’, Journal of Palestine Studies, 35(4): 6–27.Google Scholar
Hroub, K. (2006b), Hamas: A Beginner's Guide (London: Pluto Press).Google Scholar
ICG (International Crisis Group) (2004), Dealing with Hamas, Middle East Report 21 (Amman and Brussels: International Crisis Group).Google Scholar
ICG (International Crisis Group) (2006), Enter Hamas: The Challenges of Political Integration, Middle East Report 49 (Amman and Brussels: International Crisis Group).Google Scholar
Khalidi, R. (1995), ‘Is there a Future for Middle East Studies?’, Middle East Studies Association Bulletin, 29(1): 1–6.Google Scholar
Khan, M.H., Giacaman, G.Amundsen, I. (2004) (eds), State Formation in Palestine: Viability and Governance during a Social Transformation (London: Routledge Curzon).Google Scholar
Knudsen, A. (2005), ‘Crescent and Sword: The Hamas Enigma’, Third World Quarterly, 26(8): 1373–1388.Google Scholar
Kristianasen, W. (1999), ‘Challenge and Counterchallenge: Hamas's Response to Oslo’, Journal of Palestine Studies, 28(3): 19–36.Google Scholar
Kumaraswamy, P.R. (2001), ‘The Jordan–Hamas Divorce’, Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, 3(8), www.meforum.org/meib/articles/0108_me1.htm.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1971), ‘Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method’, American Political Science Review, 65(3): 682–693.Google Scholar
Lindberg, S.I. (2006), ‘Tragic Protest: Why do Opposition Parties Boycott Elections?’, in A. Schedler (ed.), Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner): 149–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGeough, P. (2010), Kill Khalid: The Failed Mossad Assassination of Khalid Mishal and the Rise of Hamas (London: Quartet Books).Google Scholar
Maqdsi, M. (1993), ‘Charter of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) of Palestine’, Journal of Palestine Studies, 22(4): 122–134.Google Scholar
Milton-Edwards, B.Farrell, S. (2010), Hamas: The Islamic Resistance Movement (Cambridge: Polity).Google Scholar
Mishal, S.Sela, A. (2000), The Palestinian Hamas: Vision, Violence, and Coexistence (New York: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
Montero, J.R.Gunther, R. (2002), ‘Introduction: Reviewing and Reassessing Parties’, in R. Gunther, J.R. Montero and J.J. Linz (eds), Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 1–35.Google Scholar
Panebianco, A. (1988), Political Parties: Organization and Power, Cambridge Studies in Modern Political Economies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Rabbani, M. (1996), ‘Palestinian Authority, Israeli Rule: From Transitional to Permanent Arrangement’, Middle East Report, 26(4): 2–22.Google Scholar
Randall, V.Svåsand, L. (2002), ‘Party Institutionalization in New Democracies’, Party Politics, 8(1): 5–29.Google Scholar
Roy, S. (1999), ‘De-development Revisited: Palestinian Economy and Society Since Oslo’, Journal of Palestine Studies, 28(3): 64–82.Google Scholar
Roy, S. (2002), ‘Why Peace Failed: An Oslo Autopsy’, Current History, 101(651): 8–16.Google Scholar
Roy, S. (2003), ‘Hamas and the Transformation(s) of Political Islam in Palestine’, Current History, 102(660): 13–20.Google Scholar
Said, E.W. (1978), Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books).Google Scholar
Sartori, G. (1976), Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis (Colchester: ECPR Press).Google Scholar
Schwedler, J. (2007), Faith in Moderation: Islamist Parties in Jordan and Yemen, 1st edn (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Shamir, J.Shikaki, K. (2010), Palestinian and Israeli Public Opinion: The Public Imperative in the Second Intifada (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).Google Scholar
Shikaki, K. (2006), ‘Sweeping Victory, Uncertain Mandate’, Journal of Democracy, 17(3): 116–130.Google Scholar
Shikaki, K. (2007), With Hamas in Power: Impact of Palestinian Domestic Developments on Options for the Peace Process, Working Paper (Waltham: Crown Center for Middle East Studies, Brandeis University).Google Scholar
Stokes, S.C. (1999), ‘Political Parties and Democracy’, Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1): 243–267.Google Scholar
Strøm, K. (1990), ‘A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties’, American Journal of Political Science, 34(2): 565–598.Google Scholar
Tamimi, A. (2007), Hamas: A History from Within (Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press).Google Scholar
Usher, G. (1995), ‘What Kind of Nation? The Rise of Hamas in the Occupied Territories’, Race and Class, 37(2): 65–80.Google Scholar
Usher, G. (1996), ‘The Politics of Internal Security: The PA's New Intelligence Services’, Journal of Palestine Studies, 25(2): 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usher, G. (2005), ‘Letter from the Occupied Territories: The Palestinians after Arafat’, Journal of Palestine Studies, 34(3): 42–56.Google Scholar
Weinberg, L. (1991), ‘Turning to Terror: The Conditions under which Political Parties Turn to Terrorist Activities’, Comparative Politics, 23(4): 423–438.Google Scholar
Wolinetz, S.B. (2002), ‘Beyond the Catch-all Party: Approaches to the Study of Parties and Party Organization in Contemporary Democracies’, in R. Gunther, J.R. Montero and J.J. Linz (eds), Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 136–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar