The Irrelevance of Election Law to Lebanese Expats

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?