Recently, there has been much discussion in Lebanon about the upcoming
parliamentary elections in terms of what law would be adopted and its effects? Expats
themselves are asking what are the true implications and will election results
truly make a difference one way or the other?
The debate centers around the ideal formula to be utilized
for the next parliamentary elections. The existing election law was
fundamentally passed in 1960 under the Administration of President Chehab; and
yet from recent declarations made, no parliamentarian seems to like it—even though
ironically it brought them into parliament. The 1960 law has mid-sized
districts, and is based on a winner-take-all model within each district, which,
it is often argued, may not give much voice to minorities. So, one group is
demanding that the 1960 law be replaced with one with smaller districts gerrymandered
around religious community clusters—basically each community is segregated and
votes for its own sect, assuring itself of parliamentary representation. The
opposing group prefers larger districting, which while merging different communities
within one voting district, aims to assure proportional representation to
everyone, large or small. Seeing that none of the options are likely to pass, a
third group has been seeking compromise by introducing a law that mixes both
with some regions doing it one way and others another way. Adding a pinch of
intrigue into the boiling pot has been the possible introduction of a senate,
which aims to allow the vote to be one way in a newly created Senate (presumably
to keep a sectarian balance locked) while the house would be transformed to a
more proportional vote.
Of course, the backdrop to all this debate is that the
Lebanese parliament has been unable to find an “acceptable” alternative election
law for almost a decade, renewing its own term twice already since 2009. With
the current discussion having reached yet another deadlock, it seems
increasingly likely that a third extension might be called for. This has both
infuriated and mobilized civil society, who claim that at this point a vote
under any law, would be better than none at all. While there may not be much of
a consensus in the country, there does appear to be a sense that parliament
extending its own term a third time borders on abuse.
Where do the Expats figure in all this and what are their
thoughts on it? As of 2008 and for the very first time, Expats obtained the
right to vote in their foreign place of residence. Not many registered or voted
back then. The question now is would more of them even bother? For one, most
Expats are not fans of this parliament. They have not forgotten that this was
the same parliament, which shirked in its basic duties to elect a President or
a Prime Minister on time. Expats have not forgotten the eternal postponement of
very critical pieces of legislation, which had to do with transcendental issues
such as the budget, the environment, and the exploitation of natural resources—all
of which have had dire economic consequences. They have not forgotten that this
was the very same parliament, which while repeatedly shelving pay raises for
public employees, found it quite convenient to give its own members pay-raises and
then impose controversial new taxes on the people. And lastly, they have not
forgotten that this parliament has yet to pass a 2012 draft law giving Expats their
very own representatives within parliament.
While they would like to see change happen, Expats approach
the current election law debate with a healthy dose of skepticism. They see it
as futile tweaking, which generates little more than a tug war between the controlling
parties, to gerrymander and choose their own electors as opposed to
having the electors chose them. Expats also scoff at the thought of creating a Senate,
which under the existing system not only would add an unnecessary extra layer
of complexity, but would increasingly tighten the noose on an already
suffocating political system. If over the past decade, the Lebanese parliament was barely able to pass any meaningful legislation, Expats ask, how likely is it to do any better with the extra approval step
of an even more sectarian Senate? To truly begin
making a difference, Expats believe that the Lebanese political system must
first and foremost be driven towards more open election choices, which reduce sectarian
gerrymandering not increase it-in line with what is stated in the Lebanese Constitution.
What will Expats do? First, they are fully aware that they do not
currently have much political power nor will they likely have any meaningful representation any time soon. But they also
realize that they can vote with their feet and with their wallets. In
2009, for instance, out of the millions of Lebanese Expats globally, less than 10,000
actually registered to vote, and only a portion voted—meaning they
voted with their feet to stay away from a system, which is alien and
irrelevant to them and the lives they lead abroad. This trend will not likely change
as Expats will continue to feel disenfranchised and won’t feel compelled to
waste their time voting for the same faces, by using tweaked laws. As importantly, Expats
will continue to vote with their wallets; and at this point it is safe
to say they are not scurrying to invest in Lebanon or change
their touristic support, especially not after the serious environmental
degradation, sea-side garbage dump debacles, and illegal beach grabs.
Instead, Expats are likely to take a wait and see course of action,
entertaining the incumbent political class’ oligarchic hold on the Lebanese political
system and all the futile attempts at mask-taping what is clearly broken. Like
most Lebanese, they see major economic and political storms on the horizon; and
they wonder if it would not be wiser to let it all fall on those who created the mess in the first place and those continuing to refuse serious reform. As such, they ask: What is the point of fiddling with the election
law to begin with?
