Who won Lebanon's elections?

By Walid Phares
Special to Lebanonwire

The last round of legislative elections ended June 19 in North Lebanon, completing a month-long process that gave the country a new assembly of 128 members. Although no violence marred the four rounds of voting and despite the fact that charges of money pressures were raised, many in the West, including within the circles that supported the “Cedar Revolution,” are struggling to understand the results. Any honest observer must admit Lebanon’s politics are complex. Unfortunately, the simple narrative that has emerged doesn’t begin to scratch the truth of the situation.

The “story”

Most global media and commentators have reported the same basic story about the elections: According election returns and party affiliations, the “Lebanese national opposition,” led by Saadeddine Hariri ¹ carried 72 seats, a clear majority, to form the next Lebanese government. Hariri’s allies includes the Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt ² (15 seats), the Lebanese Forces Party of jailed leader Samir Geagea ³ (6 seats), and the Qornet Shehwan grouping (5 seats). This storyline says the “opposition” to the present Syrian-dominated government won the elections and therefore shifted Lebanon to a moderate, pro-Western sphere.

This storyline is based on the images projected out of Lebanon since the assassination in February of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, including the million-plus people who flocked to downtown Beirut on March 14 to demand their independence from Syria. In the minds of viewers and governments around the world, those who led the masses that day were the heirs to a free, democratic Lebanon. Hence, Hariri, the son of the assassinated leader, and Jumblatt were named the leaders of the anti-Syria movement. All other groups participating in the march were defined as followers. When Hariri’s lists scored a majority in parliament, the perception was that the anti-Syrians had won.

As part of this story, the global media points out that Hezbollah won 14 seats, its ally Shiite Amal took 15, plus few pro Syrian seats, but expects that a pro-U.S. Hariri will (wishfully) contain them as a prelude to their disarmament. And while it notes that exiled Christian general Michel Aoun obtained 21 seats, the largest Christian bloc in parliament, it casts him as a “divider” since he didn’t join Hariri’s national lists. Despite 15 years of being a staunch anti-Syrian, Aoun was transformed by the Hariri media machine into an “ally of the Syrians.”

The final storyboard shows the Cedar Revolution beginning with mass protests at Martyr Square and emerging victorious at the Lebanese parliament at Nejme Square. In a sum, most newswires and major networks around the world are projecting the "story" that Lebanon's resistance against the Syrians is led by Hariri and Jumblat and was successful in evacuating the Syrian army as a result of a "revolution" they engineered. Moreover, the dominant version in the news is that an overwhelming majority of Lebanese has voted for Hariri and Jumblat to defeat the occupier. It sowed an "annex" to the story. The 15 years old Christian opposition to Syria, the one that offered the victims, the tortured, the prisoners and the vanished, is shrunk to few politicians on Hariri's list, or has become an off shoot under General Aoun's "wandering" with the ex pro-Syrian politicians.

In short, the international official version of Lebanon's elections credits the Johnny-come-late opposition, whose age in the opposition to the Syrian occupation is three months old (Wahabi Hariri and anti-US Jumblat), while the mother resistance to Assad's army and mukhabarat, both Aoun and the Lebanese Forces, were either shunned or absorbed.

The Analysis

But another reading of the Lebanese elections paints a different picture. The Lebanese labyrinth is notorious for its complexities, often oversimplified by observers or redrawn to match accepted worldviews. In this case, it’s still unclear if the emerging parliamentary alliance will deliver democracy and keep Syria at bay. Here is why:

In multi religious Beirut, with one million inhabitants, only 23% of all communities voted. Which means that the 77% of the city's population that produced the most powerful pictures of democracy to the world since the end of the Cold War weren't satisfied with the dominant competing forces: Hariri's Wahabis, Syria's Baathists or Hizbollah's leaders. Why didn't the Cedars Revolution's capital pour its streams of voters into the voting centers as it poured its demonstrators? A question deserving ample answers.

Besides, only 10% of the Christians – the main foot soldiers of the March 14 demonstration – cast their ballots. Why didn't 90% of Beirut's Christians participate? Were there no candidates to satisfy their wishes? At least two of them, they can identify with: Solange Gemayel and Jubran Tueni, staunch critics of Syria. Is it because they ran on a Wahabi leader list? In Beirut, the latter's list won. Is the answer there? Are the masses trying to send a message?

In the south and the Bekaa, Hezbollah claimed an overwhelming electoral victory. The party and its allies obtained 31 seats. Two weeks ago, Hizbollah's leader, Sheikh Nasrallah told his followers: "we must do everthing in our power to carve as large section of this parliamant. This assembly, he said, is our best protection" (obviously from UNSCR 1559) It is no surprise then that moderate Shiites were obstructed by the militia’s security and financial powers. Since the Cedars revolution was stopped short of a regime change in Lebanon, and Hizbollah wasn't disarmed before the elections, we should be not surprised that an Iranian-backed militia, with thousands of guns and millions of dollars cannot grab every single seat in its districts. With less power, the national-socialists of the 1930s in Germany overwhelmed the Bundestag. Had the Shiites been offered elections without the guns of Hizbollah, we would have really known the accurate political realities of the community. Now we see one reality: A Shiia community representation hijacked by Hizbollah.

In Mount Lebanon, the Christian heartland, Michel Aoun’s supporters carried almost all seats, indicating strong support from the staunchest anti-Syrian community in the country. When voting in their own areas, without interference from other areas and in total freedom, the Christian masses sent the same message: We want to be part of the international community, against Syrian occupation and opposed to Hizbollah's militia. Aoun was their best outlet to express this attitude. He harvested 80% of their votes. It took Hizbollah's thousands of militant ballots in one of Mount Lebanon's districts, Baabda, to defeat Aoun's list to the advantage of Hariri's: Isn't it indicative?

In the north three Muslim districts were cimented with four smaller Christian ones, as a way to deny ethnic majorities from emerging, or more precisely, to deny the Christians from developing self majorities in their district. This gerrymandering, imposed by the Syrians in 2000, was used by the Hariri coalition in 2005.

In three of the four Christian districts a popular majority voted for Aoun. The fourth one, naturally voted for the candidates of its native Samir Geagea. But due to Lebanon’s elections laws, it was thanks to more than 25,000 Sunni Wahabi votes, that the northern region fell into the hands of Hariri, backed by the Saudis. As Maronite Patriarch Sfeir complained few weeks ago: "Christian legislators are voted in by Muslim voters."

But regardless, the new political map of Lebanon appears as follows:

1. The Pro-Saudi Sunni leader Hariri is number one, flanked by the anti-American Druse leader Walid Jumblatt. Both control the legislature with backing from a smaller number of Christian legislators who are historically anti-Syrians but have joined the alliance to achieve interim or tactical agendas.

2. Hezbollah the pro-Syrian Amal stand second, and with them come the remnants of the pro-Syrian regime. They control most Shiite seats and can and will add their seats to any government that will protect them from the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1559, calling for their disarmament. They remain a strategic ally to Syria and oppose US policies.

3. Michel Aoun, with the largest bloc of the Christian MPs, starts from a position of weakness but perhaps will emerge as the loudest voice. He speaks of the disarmament of Hezbollah, has lobbied for the Syria Accountability Act in Washington, but considers the confrontation with Syria over.

But this is only the entry point into a real labyrinth: Who is pro-American, anti-American, anti-Hezbollah, pro-Syrian, pro-Wahabi, pro-Iranian, etc. Now that the elections are over, the real question for Washington is: Who is with us to implement the next segments UNSCR 1559 and who is against it. Who will dare call for disarming Hizbollah, Syria real, second army in Lebanon? We will know very soon.

¹ Son of slain former Prime minister Rafiq Hariri, a Sunni close ally of the Saudis
² Druze leader, son of Kamal Jumblat, leftwing ally to the Soviets
³ Geagea, Maronite, former commander of the Christian militia was jailed in 1994 by the previous pro-Syrian Government.

Dr Walid Phares is a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington and a Professor of Middle East Studies.