The People... The Sieve of Leadership

The People... The Sieve of Leadership

The national project is not renewed by changing individuals alone, but by the people reclaiming their role at the heart of politics, to become capable of sifting through leaders and programs that carry a vision capable of keeping pace with the challenges of the current stage.

In moments of great transformation, the most important question is not: who leads? But rather: how do the people become capable of choosing who leads them? And who determines the direction of the national project? Peoples facing historical challenges cannot remain captive to political equations formulated for past circumstances, because changing reality necessitates reviewing tools, renewing vision, and sometimes reconsidering the leadership structure itself.

At the core of this review emerges a fundamental truth: that the people are not merely a source of legitimacy, but they are the sieve of leadership. Through their awareness, participation, and ability to evaluate and hold accountable, leaders capable of carrying the national project are sifted out, and ideas that are no longer able to respond to the transformations of reality are reviewed. Leadership does not arise only from within political institutions, but is also shaped by the nature of the society that produces it, by its level of awareness, and by its ability to choose and hold accountable.

Hence, the renewal of the national project does not begin only with the question of who holds responsibility, but with the deeper question: how do we rebuild the relationship between the people and politics? And how do we move from a society that receives decisions to a society that participates in making them? A national project that is separated from its people loses part of its vitality, while a project that makes the people a true partner in it possesses the ability to renew and endure.

Today, the Palestinian issue stands before a stage that differs in nature from previous stages. The political scene is changing rapidly, and the nature of the conflict itself is undergoing profound transformations. The occupation is accumulating facts on the ground, the region is reshaping its balances, and the international community is reordering its priorities, while widespread sectors of Palestinians feel a growing gap between people's aspirations and the performance of political institutions.

Under such circumstances, renewing the national project becomes a political necessity, not merely a reformist demand. But this renewal does not begin with the question of the next leader's name, nor with the form of future political arrangements, but rather with a deeper question: from where does leadership derive its legitimacy? And who has the right to determine priorities and draw the direction of the national project?

Historical experiences have proven that major national projects are not born in closed rooms, nor are they formulated within elite circles alone, nor are they imposed from top to bottom. They arise when the people return to their natural position as the rightful owners of evaluating the experience, reviewing the path, and participating in shaping the future.

Leaders, regardless of their history and the extent of their sacrifices, are not an end in themselves, but rather tools to achieve national goals that transcend individuals. And when the stage changes and the nature of the challenges shifts, it becomes natural to raise the question about the ability of the existing leadership structure to keep pace with the new transformations, not with the aim of denying the past, but with the aim of building upon it.

Returning the helm to the people does not mean discarding history, ignoring sacrifices, or diminishing the value of what previous generations have offered. Rather, it means respecting this history by transforming it into living experience that helps shape the future. Nations do not progress when they deny their experiences, nor when they remain captive to them, but rather when they extract lessons from them and re-employ them in a way that suits the new stage.

Therefore, the need today is not just to change names, but to rebuild political awareness itself. The current challenges no longer resemble the challenges of past decades. And the confrontation is no longer limited to the field or diplomacy, but extends to economics, technology, education, media, historical narrative, and building institutions capable of resilience and continuity.

The stage requires a new political awareness that recognizes that leadership is not a permanent privilege, but a responsibility subject to evaluation, accountability, and renewal. It also requires a political culture that views disagreement not as a threat to national unity, but as an opportunity to develop decisions, as long as it takes place within a framework that respects institutions and law and places national interest above narrow calculations.

Indeed, the true sieve for any leadership is not discourse alone, nor slogans, nor history alone, but rather people's trust and their ability to evaluate performance. The people are capable of distinguishing between those who have a vision for the future and those who merely manage crises, and between those who offer implementable solutions and those who repeat the language of the past with tools that are no longer suitable for the present.

Hence, the fundamental challenge is not just to produce new leadership, but to build the political environment that allows for the emergence and sifting of this leadership. Aware people are not content with granting legitimacy, but participate in making it, and are not content with waiting for decisions, but contribute to shaping them.

From Political Partnership to a State of Reception

However, reaching a stage where the people become a true sieve for leadership first requires acknowledging a deep problem that has accumulated over many years: the decline of the direct relationship between society and politics.

Over the decades, a growing gap has emerged between citizens and decision-making centers. The Palestinian, in many cases, is no longer a daily partner in producing national choices, but has become a recipient of their results. And leadership, whether within the Authority's institutions or in political factions, has become the party most in contact with regional and international interactions, most involved in the details of political decision-making, and most aware of the complexities of power balances and surrounding circumstances.

This shift was not the result of a single factor, but came as a result of multiple accumulations; including the conditions of occupation that imposed a complex political and security reality, the complexities of internal division, the nature of political work that in many stages tended towards centralization, in addition to the decline of spaces that allow for organized public participation, and people's preoccupation with daily life challenges.

Over time, politics began to seem like a field exclusive to elites and leaders, while society's role receded to the area of support or objection after decisions were made, instead of being a partner in discussion and the creation of alternatives.

And here emerged one of the most dangerous consequences: the weakening of public opinion's ability to objectively evaluate political performance. Judging policies does not depend only on emotional stances or intentions, but requires knowledge of available options, imposed constraints, power balances, possible alternatives, and how to manage conflict in a highly complex environment.

And when this knowledge is absent from the public sphere, political discussion becomes captive to impressions and slogans, rather than being a discussion based on understanding and analysis. And then it becomes difficult for society to exercise its natural role as a sieve for leadership, because a sieve needs knowledge and criteria, not just reactions.

Therefore, renewing the national project does not begin only with the emergence of new leadership, but with rebuilding the relationship between society and politics. Elections, despite their importance, are not enough alone to create a vibrant political society. They grant legitimacy, but they do not create the political awareness required to exercise oversight, participation, and the creation of alternatives.

The real political process begins before the ballot boxes, and continues afterwards. It begins when citizens become capable of understanding public decisions, discussing national options, monitoring performance, demanding accountability, and contributing to providing solutions.

Reclaiming the People's Role as a Political Actor

For many years, politics has been reduced to power, participation has sometimes been reduced to the moment of election, and national belonging has been reduced to aligning behind one party or another. While politics, in its broader sense, is a daily practice related to how society manages its affairs, how ideas are produced, and how those in charge are monitored.

An politically active people are not just the people who participate in choosing leadership, but the people who possess the ability to understand reality, discuss options, offer alternatives, and correct the course when needed.

The wider society's participation, the more connected leadership becomes to the people, the more accountable it becomes, and the more capable it becomes of reviewing its mistakes. Leadership that operates within a vibrant political society differs from leadership that operates in a vacuum; because an aware society is not content with supporting or rejecting a decision, but asks about its reasons and consequences, proposes alternative paths, and participates in developing the project to which it belongs.

Hence, the deeper question is not just: how do we produce new leadership? But: how do we reclaim the people as a political actor, not just a voter summoned to the ballot boxes every few years, nor a recipient who waits for decisions to support or oppose them after they are issued?

Strong societies are not measured only by the number of elections they hold, but by the vitality of their public sphere, and the ability of people to discuss, hold accountable, and initiate. Peoples who leave political thinking to elites alone gradually lose their ability to produce ideas and sift through leaders, while peoples who make politics a part of their public life have a greater ability to protect their national projects from stagnation and monopoly.

Therefore, reclaiming the political role of the people begins long before the ballot boxes. It begins in schools that teach critical thinking, not memorization; dialogue, not indoctrination; and public responsibility, not just individual success. And it begins in universities that are spaces for knowledge production and free discussion, not just institutions that grant degrees.

It also begins with media that does not just transmit events, but helps citizens understand their backgrounds and analyze their options. And it begins with research centers that provide knowledge and alternatives, and with unions and civil society organizations that restore society's natural role in influencing public decisions.

Political society is not built only through official institutions, but through a wide network of knowledge, participation, and mutual trust between people and their institutions.

The People... The Sieve of Projects Before Leaders

Reclaiming the people's political role does not only mean that they choose who leads them, but that they possess the ability to evaluate the projects and visions presented to them. The problem is not always with individuals alone, but with the absence of an environment capable of sifting through ideas and programs before sifting through names.

Leaders do not emerge from a vacuum, but are a reflection of the society that produces them. The more aware society is, and the more capable it is of discussion and accountability, the greater the chances of a leadership with a real vision emerging. But when the popular role is absent, the arena becomes more susceptible to the rise of discourses that rely on emotion, history, or slogans, instead of programs capable of dealing with the challenges of reality.

Indeed, the true sieve for any leadership is not the extent of its media presence, nor its ability to use influential discourse, nor its history alone, but its ability to present a viable project, to build trust, and to transform vision into policies, institutions, and achievements.

Hence, the required transition is not just from old leadership to new leadership, but from a political culture that focuses on individuals to a culture that focuses on projects. The question that should precede all questions is not: "Who represents me?" but rather: "What project protects my future and responds to the challenges of the current stage?"

This transformation requires that the evaluation criterion be based on competence, ability to achieve, clarity of vision, integrity, and the ability to work within institutions, not on personal or organizational loyalties or on the legacy of the past alone.

However, the responsibility for building this type of political life does not fall on society alone, nor on leadership alone. It is a shared responsibility. Leadership is required to open the way for participation, promote transparency, and accept criticism and accountability, while society is required to move out of the position of recipient, and reclaim its role in producing political knowledge, monitoring performance, and participating in the creation of alternatives.

Strong leadership does not fear an aware society, but needs it. And an aware society does not seek infallible leadership, but leadership capable of listening, learning, correcting, and taking responsibility.

Consolidating this culture requires building a new political awareness that considers disagreement a source of strength, not a source of division. Serious national discussion does not weaken the cause, but protects it from stagnation. Responsible criticism does not serve opponents, but helps correct the course. And societies that honestly engage in dialogue with themselves are more capable of facing challenges than societies that postpone difficult questions for fear of disagreement.

Towards a National Project That Returns the People to the Center of Decision-Making

The national project is not renewed by changing individuals alone, but by expanding the circle of participation in producing ideas, programs, and leaders. A people who participate in formulating the national vision are more willing to defend it, more capable of bearing its cost, and more keen to follow up on those who implement it.

However, when the national project is reduced to a limited group of political actors, society gradually loses its sense of shared ownership of the cause, and interaction with it turns into a seasonal or emotional state, instead of being a continuous national practice.

Therefore, returning the helm to the people does not only mean granting them the right to choose leadership, but empowering them to be a permanent partner in making, overseeing, and renewing politics. A people who possess knowledge and the ability to discuss and hold accountable become capable of exercising their true role as the sieve of leadership.

And when society becomes capable of sifting through leaders based on competence, vision, and integrity, not through loyalties, slogans, and the legacy of the past alone, the relationship between the people and leadership changes fundamentally. Leadership no longer becomes an authority separate from society, nor do the people become merely an audience waiting for results, but both parties become part of one national process.

Conclusion: From Leadership of the People to a People Leading Their Project

Today, the Palestinian issue, with its specificity and complexity, needs this transformation more than ever. It faces a reality that works to invest time, establish facts, and reshape geography and narrative. And confronting this reality is not only by managing daily crises, but by building a political society capable of thinking for the future, and of producing tools that suit the challenges of the coming decades.

The real gamble is not just on changing faces, but on rebuilding the relationship between the people and politics, between society and leadership, and between legitimacy and participation.

A people who do not participate in shaping their future leave others to shape it on their behalf, while a people who reclaim their political role are not content with choosing leadership, but participate in shaping it, holding it accountable, and renewing it when the national interest requires it.

Thus, the people... the sieve of leadership is not just a symbolic phrase, but a political rule: every strong leadership needs a strong society, and every vibrant national project needs a people present in its making, not just present in defending it.

The future is not made by a leadership separate from its people, nor by a people waiting for someone to make their future on their behalf, but it is made by a new relationship in which the people become the source of legitimacy, the balance of evaluation, and the sieve that sifts through leaders and projects capable of carrying the responsibility of the stage.