Lebanese Elections: Positive Change or Negative Status Quo?

Lebanon’s Parliament slated May 6th, 2018 for its first elections in close to a decade.  The country’s constitution mandates Parliamentary elections every four years but due to the turmoil within the nation the last election occurred in 2009.Based on the lengthy delay since the last election and rule-alterations, the upcoming elections have the potential to result in significant changes to the government of Lebanon.  Officials expect a high voter turnout on Election Day for the 976 candidates running for 128 seats, including a record: 111 female candidates.  Conversely, even with the considerable amount of first-time young voters due to the nine-year delay, Iranian-backed Hezbollah may still keep its firm hold on Parliament, resulting in little progress or change.  Thus, the big question: is Lebanon on the precipice of true change or will the results just continue the status quo?

Based on a change to proportional representation, the new voting laws consist of each person voting twice: the first vote is from a list of pre-determined names and then the second vote is for the voter’s preference from the list. The convoluted nature of the voting process, multiple parties, and history of voting along sectarian lines makes it unlikely that the results will end in a major upset for any one group.  The religious diversity and complex political party system contribute to a population that self-identifies more with a specific group rather than as a nation.  The high number of candidates running from political dynasties is not unusual, but one aspect that is unfamiliar and unique to this election is the banding together of several activist groups in an effort to gain votes from all districts.  In a departure from past elections, the two long-established primary coalitions March 8 and March 14 are seeking alliances with other groups in a bid to reach a much larger population of new voters.

The current Prime Minister’s Future Movement Party is diversifying its candidates and including some that were previously viewed as political rivals.  One aspect of the upcoming elections that remains unchanged is the National Pact.  The National Pact mandates  “the President [elected by Parliament, not the voters directly] must be Maronite, the Prime Minister Sunni, and other positions would be reserved for the Shi’a and Druze as well as smaller minorities. A prominent position to note is that of the Speaker of the Parliament.  This role is designated for a Shi’a Muslim, the same religious affiliation as the Iranian-supported Hezbollah party.  The mandate does not guarantee the Speaker will come from Hezbollah, but the probability is high that whoever fills that role will be sympathetic to Hezbollah’s agenda.  The current President Michel Aoun supports Hezbollah and has signed a formal agreement with the group in 2006.  If the new Parliament re-elects Aoun, it further solidifies Hezbollah’s influence overt wo of the three leading government positions.

Stability from both an economic and security perspective are central issues surrounding the vote on May 6th.  In early April 2018, at the behest of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Lebanon received pledges for over 11 billion dollars from several nations to bolster the shaky economy.  The over 1.5 million Syrian refugees living in Lebanon place a considerable strain on the economy, even with support provided by the international community.  Lebanon is in a tenuous position both geographically and politicallywith the Russian-backed Syrians on one side and Israel on the other, while one of its most influential political parties serves Iran, who also supports Syria and is vehemently anti-Israel.  Saudi Arabia is involved as well and plays a key role in trying to counter the efforts of Iran.  Many nations have an interest in Lebanon but honestly for their own national gain and not the good of the country as an independent nation.  Preventing an economic collapse, which would be followed by the inevitable grab for power, is vital to preventing a messier situation in the region.  Hezbollah still seeks to enact its “long-term goal of the Islamization of Lebanon and the establishment from within of an Islamic republic. While Hezbollah also agreed not to conduct extremist domestic operations when it became a political party, the potential collapse of the Lebanese government post-election provides the perfect opportunity for it to achieve the above-stated goal and would ultimately give Iran a more permanent and critically strategic foothold.

Prime Minister Saad Hariri proposed a plan that would stabilize the economy and create jobs for both Lebanese and Syrian refugees.  Securing the necessary funding a little more than a month before the elections is a victory for Hariri and his Future Movement Party, especially on the heels of his November 2017 unexpected resignation while in Saudi Arabia and subsequent rescinding of the resignation once out of Saudi Arabia.  Whether the resignation announcement was a stunt, done under duress, or a sincere act undid by pressure from other entities is not known.  During his resignation speech, Hariri claimed that Iran and Hezbollah were destabilizing Lebanon and speculation abounds that he revoked his resignation after Hezbollah agreed to not interfere in domestic issues.  Saad Hariri, formerly a businessman, became active politically after his father’s assassination in 2005.  He is also not a political novice, having served as Prime Minister from 2009 – 2011 and his father served as same five times between 1992 and 2004.  Some view Hariri, likely to remain Prime Minister after the elections, as taking a less hostile stance towards Hezbollah.  If true, that gives Hezbollah influence in all three central political billets – President, Prime Minister, and Parliament Secretary.  However, this also positions Hariri between Iran and Saudi Arabia. If he is working both sides it could result in a tragic political ending like his father.

The known unknown at this point is the reaction to and effects of the strikes on Syria launched by the United States, United Kingdom, and France in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack on April 7th, 2018.  Of the players with interests in Lebanon, only Saudi Arabia and Israel are not wholly against the United States.  Saudi Arabia could provide Lebanon with much needed financial support and appears to be making overtures of challenging Hezbollah’s Parliamentary seats in at least one region in southern Lebanon.  The potential exists that Parliament may cancel the elections based on the situation and the aftermath of the strikes.  How the people in Lebanon will react if the government decides to cancel the vote is unknown but it could be the catalyst needed to incite an Arab Spring-like protest within the country.  Any demonstrations or unrest internally potentially gives an opening for Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, or any number of other groups to exploit the situation for their own gain.

Hezbollah’s Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah has proven himself a savvy political operative with an astute ability to envision and move the group into an advantageous position without acquiescing to too many concessions. Initially, many thought, the move from terrorist organization to a political party would require Hezbollah to become more mainstream or disarm.  Nasrallah found a way to avoid this, and any “Lebanonization” of Hezbollah, making the transition on their own terms to suit their own end game.  Hezbollah’s only real compromise to gain acceptance as a political party was agreeing not to conduct attacks inside of Lebanon.

Hezbollah from its beginning as a terrorist organization built a reputation of being more stable and helpful than the Lebanese government. So much so that people would go to Hezbollah for essential services before trying to access aid through the government.  This ability to support the people aided Hezbollah’s transition from solely a terrorist organization to a legitimate political party.  The garbage crisis on 2015-2016 led to the “You Stink” movement in Beirut and brings up the question of Hezbollah’s continued influence and capacity to provide services.  If they are willing and able, why allow this garbage crisis to continue?  What did the party gain?  If Hezbollah was unable to resolve the situation quickly, then is this an indicator that the party is not as dominant a service provider as it once was?  This minute detail could be a crack in the façade of Hezbollah that opens the door for other parties to make political headway against it.

Previously, the government canceled elections due to internal unrest.  Thus, Parliament scheduling the May 6th elections is an essential first step in retaking ownership of their nation.  The government’s successes or failures past that point are more dependent on those elected.  It seems unlikely with the election reforms that there will be a strong Parliament able to stand up to surrounding nations’ interference.  Ideally, Parliament pressures Hezbollah successfully to stop working as Iran’s proxy.  On paper, this sounds like a winning solution but the second and third order effects might be more detrimental to Lebanon.  The country’s government and military are not prepared to counter Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, Saudi Arabia, or many other groups if they set Lebanon in their crosshairs.  The next best case is the government develops and implements a plan to use economic aid to bolster the economy rather than to line the pockets of those in power.

Now is not the time or the place for the United States to take the lead in shoring up the government of Lebanon, but it absolutely can and should be part of the international community supporting a nation trying to maintain stability in a historically unstable area. The UNDP Administrator summed it up best, “supporting Lebanese unity and stability will support stability in the entire region, and it will diminish the threats to peace that we are facing today in the world, but we can only achieve this by working together.” One can only hope that after so many years of waiting, the voting electorate shows the world it is ready to step into the spotlight and catapult Lebanon forward as a model of restraint, progress, and emerging democracy. If so, then it would be a much welcome change not only in Lebanon but across the Middle East as a whole.

Dana Ogle
Dana Ogle
Dana Ogle has over 25 years’ experience as a United States Marine, providing mission integration in ground, air, and cyberspace operations. She is currently a doctoral student in the School of Security and Global Studies at the American Military University.