Why is Lebanon’s General Election so important?
On 15th May the citizens of Lebanon will go to the polls in an election many consider both hard to call and hugely important. Here, friend of Embrace and Lebanon expert, Martin Accad, provides some fascinating context. Our thanks to Martin who writes in a personal capacity.
Elections are the key – one might argue the only key – opportunity for citizens to bring change in a representative democratic system. Beyond the election moment, citizens will just have to live with the outcome of their choices for the next mandate cycle, which in Lebanon is four years. Lebanon is (for now at least, and the window may be fast closing) a country still committed to democracy. In this light, the importance of our general elections this Sunday the 15th of May should not be lost on anyone. Let me highlight a few key issues that have to be kept in mind as we await the outcome of this process.
Lebanon’s socio-religious confessionalism is reflected in political sectarianism
There is no shame for a country to be blessed with religious confessional diversity. Confessional diversity is a fact of our history. But when it becomes the dominant political reality of a country, this is when the curse of political sectarianism is cast, leading to what one might call a zaeemocracy (rule of the zaeem, a word approximately translated as “feudal lord”). This zaeemocracy is a structural system we inherited from the civil war (1975–1990). In 1991, as the country was coming out of 15 years of bloody fratricide, the former warlords (militia leaders) morphed into a political class and fashioned a general amnesty for themselves. All wartime crimes were forgiven – by the perpetrators! The following 30 years would be better described as the rise of a cartel than the reconstruction of a post-war nation. Six major zaeem-doms, and a few additional minor ones, coexisted through a tacit agreement on territorial distribution. Their “territories” consisted of geographical, political, and economic “benefits” – also known as racketeering. There have been occasional skirmishes between the various cartels. But overall, they have happily coexisted so long as each understood the boundaries of their own territory and that of others.
The last three years of near-total economic and infrastructural collapse have given birth to a new sense of political citizenry among all strata of society with a strong will to take back the country
The last three years, since 2019, tell a story of revolution, economic collapse, deterioration of the health system, and erosion of national infrastructure, capped by the disastrous Beirut port blast which – arguably – was the result of an endless series of the most serious crimes perpetrated by an entire political class against its own citizens. The newly politicized citizenry that emerged from this revolution managed to transition from a disorganized and decentralized popular uprising to a mishmash of emerging political movements and parties which – some have alleged – at its peak consisted of over 200 disparate groups.
In the early days of electoral frenzy, there were multiple attempts at uniting the change movement on a single electoral platform. All these attempts eventually failed, but the spirit of the change movement survived and continues. Today, each of Lebanon’s 15 electoral districts has several lists running in the elections. The highest number is found in the second northern district with 11 lists, while the lowest number of 3 lists is found in the third southern district.
Each district is crowded with candidate lists of the usual suspects, which include the most questionable alliances between sometimes mortal enemies, united according to minutely calculated electoral opportunities, coming together to achieve respective interests of maintaining themselves in power in these hardest of times. In most districts, there are also more than one list representing themselves as part of the “change movement.”
This may seem discouraging, and it has indeed contributed to disillusionment among many voters, but it is the natural outcome of intense months of deliberations between the diverse groups in a decentralized movement. These are the groups that are hoping to squeeze into the carefully sewn “electoral suit” of 2017.
Given the nature of our current electoral law, fashioned in 2017, voters do not actually get to elect individuals to parliament
When we cast our vote for a candidate, we are casting our vote primarily for the list in which they are running, and more broadly for their opportunistic allies at the national level.
In 2017, our sectarian political class designed an electoral law that – at the time – fit them like a glove. As a Lebanese popular saying goes, “they tailored a suit to their own exact body size.” As a result, the 2018 elections left very little chance for anyone from outside the sectarian regime to reach parliament. The main difference today, four years later, which is chiefly the result of the 2019 popular uprising and of the other national disasters, is that the popularity of the old guard has somewhat shrunk.
The suit has become slightly oversized. The little extra space left at the waistline by this modest “weight loss” is the tight space that the “change movement” can hope to occupy this time around. The well-oiled electoral machines of the traditional parties became of course well aware of these new challengers early on, and they are beginning to screech. At first the emerging change movement was not taken seriously. Then each of the traditional parties tried to capture a segment of the movement by claiming it for themselves, ironically presenting themselves as the champions of anti-corruption and as the “real revolution,” against the “others who did not let them bring the change” they had always sought – so they claimed.
At this point, many of these new “nobodies” are being taken increasingly seriously. There were attempts last December to delay or even cancel the upcoming elections. Then there was an attempt at advancing the vote to March, which was likely a strategy to take the new and ill-prepared groups by surprise. That too failed. Some districts are already experiencing bouts of violence through familiar practices of intimidation. The diaspora vote, which was once viewed by traditional parties as an opportunity to tighten their hold on the country, has been one of the unexpected surprises. A few months back already, some of the traditional parties made attempts at domesticating that voice by reducing its vote to 6 dedicated diaspora seats. They did not succeed. The guardians of the old system had perhaps missed the fact that a large proportion of the Lebanese diaspora today are not willing migrants, but refugees forced to seek new opportunities elsewhere. The revenge vote – quite likely – of the diaspora has by now already taken place. It might turn out that their vote will have tipped the balance of power.
The upcoming elections will be a referendum about Lebanese society’s willingness and ability to take charge of its own future
But no one in the change movement suffers from the illusion of a landslide win. The average expectation of the realist among electoral analysts is that this referendum could capture up to 6 new seats for the revolutionary “purists.” If we add to that a few other semi-traditional candidates, it is possible that a block of about 20–25 deputies may take shape in the new parliament. These will be able to join forces together on issues of common interest that would benefit national change.
This Sunday the 15th of May, we the Lebanese people have a rendezvous with new possibilities.
by Martin Accad