Counter-point
Lebanon goes to the polls on Sunday May 6th in the first parliamentary election since June 2009 although the term of the national assembly is just four years. The election was delayed by protracted squabbling over a new electoral law, insecurity, failure to elect a president for two years, and difficulties over forming governments. Consequently, parliament extended its own mandate twice before setting a date for balloting.
The electoral law adopted is based on proportional representation but rigged so that candidates of traditional factions have the advantage against independents and hopefuls from new parties and civil society groups. Voters are set to choose from lists of candidates set by their parties but can select preferential figures from the lists. The law has, however, stirred trouble in some districts where rival parties are competing vigorously. An Armenian commentator pointed out that his community’s two traditional political parties are under pressure due to the adoption of Armenian candidates by main blocs.
Lebanese consulted by The Gulf Today said the new law perpetuates the old sectarian political system imposed by colonial France in the 1920s. This model has been disastrous for the country by precipitating two civil wars (1958 and 197590) and creating endless instability.
The Lebanese political cake is divided equally between Chrisitan and Muslim groups. Parliamentary representation is half and half. Presidents and army chiefs are always Maronite Christians, prime ministers Sunnis, and speakers of parliament Shias. Other top jobs are doled out on communal basis.
In this contest there are 976 candidates, including 111 women, competing for the 128 seats in the chamber of deputies. For a change, most of the women are not wives or daughters of the country’s powerful families who have dominated the scene since independence in 1943. A large number of women standing does not, however, mean many will win seats or that the grip of the country’s patriarchs has weakened.
Among the neo-feudal veterans are former Premier Tammam Salam, son of Saeb Salam who held that post six times; Michel Murr, now 85, who served as Interior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister; Marwan Hamadeh, a former journalist who has occupied several ministerial positions in a collection of cabinets; Prime Minister Saad Hariri son of assassinated former premier Rafiq Hariri, and Foreign Minister Gibran Basil, son-in-law of current President Michael Aoun.
New faces among the traditionals include Taymour Jumblatt, son of Druze leader Walid Jumblatt and grandson of assassinated Kamal Jumblatt; Tony Frangieh, grandson of former President Suleiman Frangie; and Michelle Tueini, daughter of assassinated deputy Gebran Tueini who was the son of the influential founder and editor of An-nahar, Ghassan Tueini.
Veterans and sons, daughters and grandchildren of the political elite face adverse collections of
LEBANON IS PREPARING FOR THE FIRST PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION SINCE 2009 IN A VOTE WHICH WILL SEE 976 CANDIDATES, INCLUDING 111 WOMEN, COMPETING FOR THE 128 SEATS IN THE CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES
activists — including those who made their names protesting the lack of garbage collection and disposal — and personalities, some daring to challenge the sectarian model. Although these groups and individuals are energetic and vocal, it is unlikely that they will effect change as the sectarianism remains firmly in place and the elite has the influence and money to win seats. Furthermore, Lebanese from all communities and stations in life rely on “clientism,” influence peddling by their elected officials, to secure both rights and benefits.
In 2009 the major alliances flew supporters in from the world over to cast their ballots, making participation extraordinarily high. This time, Lebanese living abroad voted at their embassies ahead of polling day in Lebanon. Foreign as well as neo-feudal interests are at play.
Early last month, the Saudis hosted a spectacular event for Riyadh-leaning politicians and their sons at Beirut’s main conference hall in a bid to demonstrate the kingdom’s influence in Lebanon. This gathering was attended by Hariri, candidates from his Future movement, Jumblatt and his son, and others although the Saudi summons insulted many Lebanese who were angered by Riyadh’s detention last November of Hariri and his forced resignation. Demonstrations across Lebanon by members of all communities and pressure from France secured his release and return to Beirut where he revoked his resignation.
The close ally of the Shia Hizbollah movement, Iran has adopted a lower, more subtle profile than its regional Saudi rival. Hizbollah, the dominant Shia movement, shares power with Amal headed by longstanding Parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri.
While adopting opposite approaches to the poll, both Riyadh and Tehran are determined their candidates will come out on top. The Saudi-sponsored Sunni Future Movement, headed by Hariri, with its right-wing Christian allies is aggressively contesting candidates fielded by Hizbollah, Amal, and Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement, the Shias’ chief Christian partner.
The 2009 outcome pleased the Western and Arab powers which had intervened heavily to ensure the Future-led alliance would triumph, with 71 seats, while the Hizbollah-led grouping took 57 seats, mimicking the result of the 2005 poll.
Pundits predict this election will change nothing and Hariri will emerge as prime minister to balance Hizbollah’s ally Aoun in the presidential palace. Although corruption has been the chief issue of the campaign, no one expects the new chamber of deputies and government to tackle this scourge which has soared since 1990 when the second civil war ended. There has been little debate over health care, housing, a controversial rental law passed two years ago, financial policy and garbage disposal issues impacting the lives of all Lebanese.
Former US President Jimmy Carter and his team monitored the 2009 poll and reported that the election appeared free of intimidation and counting was transparent. Carter, however, criticised the system which he said gave some districts greater weight than others, thereby granting political advantage to favoured voters.
Following his mission in Lebanon, Carter drove to Damascus to meet President Bashar al-assad and leaders from the Palestinian Hamas movement, men now isolated and besieged. He went on to Amman, Jerusalem, Ramallah, and Gaza to promote a peace process that came to nothing.