Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

High Stakes, High Anxiety: Campaigning in Lebanon

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • High Stakes, High Anxiety: Campaigning in Lebanon

    Washington Institute for Near East Policy
    PolicyWatch #1488
    March 12 2009


    High Stakes, High Anxiety: Campaigning in Lebanon

    By David Schenker
    March 12, 2009

    This Saturday, Lebanon's pro-West March 14 coalition officially kicks
    off its election campaign in Beirut. Two weeks ago, the Hizballah-led
    opposition -- backed by Syria and Iran -- started campaigning in its
    stronghold in the Beqa Valley. With less than three months until
    Lebanon's parliamentary election, the contest, which pits March 14
    against Hizballah's so-called March 8 coalition, promises to be
    extremely close. Four years ago, March 14 won a thin majority in the
    parliamentary elections, but it is unclear whether the coalition will
    return to power this June. Should the opposition prevail, the impact
    on Lebanese and regional politics -- as well as on Washington's
    relations with Beirut -- could be profound. Background

    Just four months after the February 2005 assassination of former
    Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri, Lebanon went to the polls to elect a
    new 128-member parliament. The resulting legislature broke down into
    essentially three blocs: first, the March 14 alliance, a coalition of
    Sunnis, Druze, and some Christians led by Saad Hariri (the slain
    premier's son), Walid Jumblatt, and Samir Geagea, which took 72 seats;
    second, the Shiite Hizballah-Amal bloc, led by Hassan Nasrallah and
    Nabih Berri, which secured 35 seats; and third, the Free Patriotic
    Movement (FPM), an overwhelmingly Christian bloc led by General Michel
    Aoun, which garnered 21 seats.

    In February 2006, Hizballah and Aoun's FPM joined forces, providing
    the opposition with a formidable 56-seat bloc. This development was
    followed by a series of political assassinations allegedly perpetrated
    by Syria and its Lebanese allies. The killings depleted the majority
    bloc from 72 to 68 out of 128 seats, raising concerns that further
    attrition would culminate in an opposition takeover. Since then,
    although tensions have remained high, the status quo has not changed
    dramatically.

    The most significant change to the election dynamic since 2005 was the
    June 2008 election of former Lebanese Armed Forces chief of staff
    Michel Sulaiman as president. Sulaiman, who is widely viewed as
    neutral in spite of his past close ties to Damascus, has lent his
    support to the establishment of a "centrist bloc" to compete for
    parliamentary seats, a move that could potentially siphon off
    Christian votes from Aoun's FPM in key districts.

    March 14 Preparations

    For months, March 14 has been working behind the scenes to broker a
    complicated compromise to the contentious issue of seat allocation --
    coordinating which coalition partner will stand for seats in each
    district. At the same time, March 14 has worked to forge electoral
    alliances in key districts to improve the coalition's electoral
    chances. To this end, the coalition has courted former Lebanese prime
    minister Najib Mikati and the small but significant Armenian Tashnaq
    party, which has proved pivotal in recent elections, particularly the
    2007 by-election in Metn to fill the seat of assassinated March 14
    parliamentarian Pierre Gemayel. (Former Lebanese president Amin
    Gemayel ran for the seat but was defeated by a previously unknown
    Aounist by a margin of 418 Tashnaq votes.)

    There are some tentative indications that March 14's strategy might
    bear fruit. In the crucial district of Metn, an alliance appears to
    have been struck between the March 14-affilated Phalange Party and
    longtime political operator Michel Murr. Murr backs the idea of a
    centrist bloc, but his list is closely affiliated with March 14,
    effectively undermining opposition inroads in Metn and other
    districts. Importantly, Murr is also expected to deliver a significant
    portion of the Tashnaq constituency to March 14.

    Meanwhile, March 14 has been honing its campaign platform, focusing on
    state legitimacy and sovereignty -- in particular, the need for all
    weapons to be under the control of the state -- and a commitment to
    implement UN Security Council resolutions toward Lebanon.

    Hizballah and the Free Patriotic Movement

    In early March, Hizballah deputy secretary general and general
    observer for elections Naim Qassem held a campaign rally in the Beqa,
    reportedly attended by ten thousand supporters from the Baalbak-Hermel
    and Zahle districts. Under the slogan of "Together we will resist,
    together we will build Lebanon," Qassem presented the broad outlines
    of the Resistance and Development bloc.

    During his speech, Qassem discussed the traditional Hizballah concept
    of "resistance," boasting that in addition to countering the "Israeli
    threat," the opposition had also demonstrated its bona fides in recent
    years by "clip[ping] America's fingernails in Lebanon." On the topic
    of development, Qassem touted a kinder and gentler side of Hizballah,
    which he said believes that it is "unacceptable to deal with people as
    numbers." In this context, he pledged his party's support for
    "universal social and health insurance" and claimed his party would be
    a "model for fighting corruption."

    The FPM also launched its campaign in the beginning of March, with
    Aoun framing the election as a choice between "Change and Reform" --
    the name of his bloc -- and the alleged corruption of March 14. Since
    then, Aoun has been narrowly focused on attacking President Suleiman,
    Michel Murr, the idea of a centrist bloc, and the Maronite patriarch
    who has come out strongly in the bloc's favor. Aoun has also spent
    time fending off rumors that he might be excommunicated for allegedly
    slandering Lebanese patriarch Nasrallah Sfair, who earlier this month
    stated that it would be a "historic mistake" if March 8 won a majority
    in parliament.

    Key Questions and Imperfect Polls

    In Lebanon, where polling is largely a subjective matter, it is
    difficult to ascertain the relative support for March 14 vis-a-vis the
    opposition. According to the calculations of prominent March 8
    pollster Kamal Feghali, the opposition has 53 secure seats while March
    14 has 41, leaving 34 to be contested. Meanwhile, a poll released by
    the opposition-aligned Lebanese daily al-Akhbar on March 9 predicts 47
    percent (60 seats) for the opposition and 38 percent (49 seats) for
    March 14, with 19 seats up for grabs. Earlier this week, Hizballah's
    Naim Qassem predicted a majority of 67 or 68 seats.

    Not surprisingly, March 14 polling provides an entirely different
    picture. March 14 has performed strongly in recent union and student
    body elections, and according to the ruling coalition's numbers, if
    the centrist bloc with Michel Murr remains a serious and robust
    factor, March 14 will secure 66 seats -- and a continued majority --
    while the opposition will take 58. On February 17, Murr announced that
    his electoral alliance with Gemayel in Metn was "final," but Syria and
    its allies will surely continue to press Murr to move away from March
    14. A 2005 assassination attempt against Murr's son, March 14 defense
    minister Elias Murr, may have permanently soured Murr on
    Damascus. Should Murr succumb, however, the overall electoral balance
    could shift in favor of March 8.

    Conclusion

    Hizballah and Syria have said that regardless of who wins in June,
    Beirut should establish a government of national unity where the
    minority possesses a "blocking third" -- the ability to veto all major
    government initiatives. March 14, which currently governs under this
    constraint, has made no such reciprocal offer, and majority leader
    Saad Hariri has announced that his Future Movement would not
    participate in a Hizballah-led government. While a boycott might
    undermine the local and regional legitimacy of the government, as Naim
    Qassem notes, a Hizballah victory would confer upon the organization
    the benefits of greater global acceptance.

    For Washington, the loss of Lebanon would represent a significant
    setback on many fronts. In the aftermath of Britain's recent
    ill-advised decision to diplomatically engage Hizballah, the prospect
    of the organization making increased inroads into Europe would be
    particularly troubling. At the same time, the region would perceive
    the reversal of the Cedar Revolution as a victory for Tehran and
    Damascus and a defeat for Washington -- a dynamic that could further
    complicate U.S. efforts to end Iran's nuclear program and convince
    Syria to modify its unhelpful policies. Assuredly, a Hizballah
    government in Beirut would also undermine the bilateral relationship
    with Washington.

    Fortunately, while this scenario is troubling, it is far from
    ordained. Against all odds, with three months to go, March 14 stands a
    decent chance of squeaking out another narrow victory. In the
    sensitive context of Lebanese elections, the most productive action
    Washington can take is to help guarantee a level playing field. While
    little can be done to stem Tehran's considerable funding for
    Hizballah, the Obama administration can curtail, if not prevent, some
    of the more egregious foreign interference at the polls. In this
    regard, it is essential that Washington take full advantage of its
    renewed diplomatic engagement with Syria to ensure that its new
    interlocutors in Damascus do not meddle in the elections.

    David Schenker is a Washington Institute senior fellow and director of
    its Program on Arab Politics.
Working...
X