Most scholarly and popular writings portray Hamas as either extremist or anti- systemic and as a threat to democracy. Expected utility theory assumes that voters will reward centrist parties because voters are risk-averse, while prospect theory expects extremist parties to be supported by voters since they tend to become risk-takers when in loss. After contrasting Hamas’s ideological distance from other Palestinian political parties, I argue that the secret of Hamas’s electoral success in 2006 lies not in its extremism but in its ideological centrist domestic message, consistent with expected utility theory. Palestinian voters supported what they saw as a centrist Hamas although it was viewed as extremist in the West. More importantly, the participation of Hamas in the democratic process has moderated its domestic and foreign policies, while its exclusion has destabilizing and radicalizing effects.
BrownNathan J. (2007). Requiem for Palestinian reform: Clear lessons from a troubled record. Democracy and Rule of Law Books, No. 81. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved July 5, 2007, from http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/cp_81_palestine_final.pdf
4.
CapocciaGiovanni (2002). Anti-system parties: A conceptual reassessment. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 14(1), 9–35.
5.
ChhibberPradeep K. (1996). State policy, rent seeking, and the electoral success of a religious party in Algeria. The Journal of Politics, 58(1), 126–148.
6.
ChurchClive H. (2008). The Swiss elections of 21 October 2007: Consensus fights back. West European Politics, 31(3), 608–623.
7.
CreswellJohn W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
8.
DavisOtto A.HinichMelvin J.OrdeshookPeter C. (1970). An expository development of a mathematical model of the electoral process. American Political Science Review, 64(2), 426–448.
9.
DownsAnthony (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
10.
EnelowJames M.HinichMelvin J. (1982). Ideology, issues, and the spatial theory of elections. American Political Science Review, 76(3), 493–501.
11.
EnelowJames M.HinichMelvin J. (1984). The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
GrofmanBernard (1985). The neglected role of the status quo in models of issue voting. Journal of Politics, 47(1), 230–237.
13.
HinichMelvin J.PollardWalter (1981). A new approach to the spatial theory of elections. American Political Science Review, 25(2), 323–341.
14.
JackmanRobert W.VolpertKarin (1996). Conditions favouring parties of the extreme right in western Europe. British Journal of Political Science, 26(4), 501–521.
15.
KahnemanDanielTverskyAmos (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.
16.
KingGary (1990). Electoral responsiveness and partisan bias in multiparty democracy. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 15(2), 159–181.
17.
KingGaryRosenOriTannerMartinWagnerAlexander F. (2008). Ordinary economic voting behavior in the extraordinary election of Adolf Hitler. The Journal of Economic History, 68(4), 951–996.
18.
KopelowitzEzra (2001). Religious politics and Israel’s ethnic democracy. Israel Studies, 6(3), 166–190.
19.
LevittMathew (2004). Hamas from the cradle to the grave. Middle East Quarterly, 11(1), 1–12.
20.
LevittMathew (2006). Hamas: Politics, charity, and terrorism in the service of Jihad. New Haven: Yale University Press.
21.
MathewsStevens A. (1979). A simple directional model of electoral competition. Public Choice, 34(2), 141–156.
22.
MerrillSamuelIIIGrofmanBernard (1999). A unified theory of voting: Directional and proximity spatial models. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
MishalShaul (2003). The pragmatic dimension of the Palestinian Hamas: A network perspective. Arms Forces and Society, 29(4), 569–589.
24.
Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (2003, April3–7). Appointment of prime minister, political reform, roadmap, war in Iraq, Arafat’s popularity, and political affiliation. Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, Poll # 7. Retrieved August 15, 2011, from http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2003/p7a.html
25.
Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (2006, January17–19). Special public opinion poll on the upcoming Palestinian elections. Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. Retrieved August 15, 2011, from http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2006/preelectionsjan06.html
26.
PedahzurAmiBrichtaAvraham (2002). The institutionalization of extreme right-wing charismatic parties: A paradox?Party Politics, 8(1), 31–49.
27.
RabinowitzGeorgeMacdonaldStuart Elaine (1989). A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 83(1), 93–121.
28.
SalemJamil (2006, July6). The Palestinian judicial system. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, Baltimore, MD.
29.
TepeSultan (2000). A Kemalist – Islamist Movement? The Nationalist Action Party. Turkish Studies, 1(2), 59–72.
30.
TepeSultan (2005). Religious parties and democracy: A comparative assessment of Israel and Turkey. Democratization, 12(3), 283–307.
31.
Van der BrugWouterMughanAnthony (2007). Charisma, leader effects and support for right-wing populist parties. Party Politics, 13(1), 29–51.
