Electoral law focus of political deadlock

Beirut: Few issues preoccupy Lebanese elites as much as the so-called electoral law. With parliamentary elections coming up in June 2013, contradictory trends are emerging on the Lebanese political scene.

The March 8-led government — whose ideological signature is often articulated by Hezbollah’s chief, Hassan Nasrallah — and March 14 opposition forces — whose complex philosophies are managed by Maronite Cardinal Beshara Rai both prefer that the obsolete 1960 law be duly amended because it stipulates candidates are only elected if their list is elected. In other words, members of parliament are elected according to party lists, which means that a candidate may have received a far larger share of actual votes but emerges a loser if his/her list doesn’t win.

In 1960, the law served the leading religious groups to control parliament. In Lebanon’s current political state, Hezbollah (which enjoys being a majority in the government) is opting for no elections and Cardinal Rai insists that on-time elections are a must even under an outdated system.

Nasrallah rejects an ongoing boycott of the Cabinet by March 14 opposition figures, as he blamed its tenors for perpetuating the crisis precisely to prevent the adoption of a new electoral law for the 2013 polls. In a televised speech during Hezbollah’s graduation ceremony last Sunday, Nasrallah declared: “Insisting on the boycott makes it clear that the real aim of the boycott is to disrupt the work of parliament, and thus prevent adopting a new electoral law.”

This was clear with no ambiguities, as he affirmed that Prime Minister Najeeb Mikati’s Cabinet will not be brought down no matter what. Under the circumstances, the Hezbollah chief urged March 14 leaders to resume the moribund National Dialogue, and return to parliament where a new law could be duly adopted.

For his part, and though not reputed for consistency, the Maronite patriarch highlighted the importance of dialogue in the Lebanese political system. He called for the adoption of a new electoral system too but what was different last week was the cleric’s insistence that a new government be formed to oversee the upcoming general elections, ostensibly because he concluded that Najeeb Mikati’s team was compromised.

The vast majority of people believe that the prime minister was not capable in dealing with ethnic strife in Tripoli or Sidon exacerbated by the situation in neighbouring Syria. To be sure, the Cardinal called on all political officials “to show their commitment to the National Dialogue to find a way out of the ongoing political stalemate”, although he accepted the 1960 mechanism if no agreement could be reached on an alternative.

For its part, the government proposed a draft law that divided the country into 13 medium-sized districts under a proportional representation system, while the opposition favoured a mechanism that divided the country into 50 smaller districts in a winner-take all system. Both tended to favour proponents although other options were also discussed, including the so-called Orthodox Gathering mechanism, which advocated that each sect elect its own lawmakers.

Unlike Nasrallah, who stated that he was ready to sit at the same table with people who allegedly bad-mouthed Hezbollah, his ally and head of a large parliamentary bloc, General Michel Aoun was far more abrasive. On Tuesday afternoon, he telegraphed his real intentions when he declared: “if there are no elections, do not worry, there will be no vacancy in power … [and] there will be no tanks and guns.”

Although six months is an eternity in Lebanon, continued disputes, often of a personal nature, may well prevent an orderly transfer of power, which will result in parliament extending its own term that, undoubtedly, would further weaken Lebanese institutions.

It was worth recalling that in 2006, Beirut appointed former foreign minister Fouad Boutros to lead the National Commission for a New Electoral Law, which released a draft law that proposed major changes to the electoral system. Regrettably, the law was never adopted, though it included a mixed system with proportional representation, out-of-country voting, a women’s quota of 30 per cent, the establishment of an Independent Electoral Commission, strict rules on campaign finance and media regulations, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 , voting from one’s place of residence, holding the entire national elections in a single day, and even acknowledging the special needs of voters with disabilities. Instead of such a contemporary system, competing electoral agendas meant that Lebanon faced a classic conundrum, which locked it in an unpopular and now obsolete law. Even that was not guaranteed as Lebanese elites lacked the political courage to move ahead.