By Jessica Robertson
While the U.S. presidential election preoccupies our media, and rightfully so, this past week another vote took place, and it is attracting political attention in the Middle East: the election of Lebanese president Michel Aoun.
Lebanon has lacked a president since the previous executive, Michel Suleiman, stepped down in 2014. On Monday, October 31, after 29 months, the country filled its presidential vacuum. While the extended absence of a president may at first appear surprising, the absence makes more sense once one becomes familiar with the inefficiency of the Lebanese political system.
In the past two years, Parliament met 37 separate times in an attempt to achieve a two thirds majority in choosing a presidential candidate. The ineffectiveness of this procedure reflects the inefficiency of the sectarian Lebanese political system as a whole. Sectarianism operates based on the complex and often historical ties between numerous political parties, nationalities, and religions. The framework of the political structure often results in the vetoing of policies aimed at addressing political, economic, and social epidemics such as the recent garbage crisis. Additionally, interpersonal relationships and family names act to legitimize certain potential candidates and their political views and castigate others. Sectarianism reinforces gridlock, and thus, even if Lebanon had a sitting president, it is unlikely he or she would have resolved the garbage crisis or the state’s other numerous problems.
The sectarian design of the Lebanese political system serves multiple interests throughout the Arab world – most notably in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Lebanese government requires that the presidential position be filled by a Maronite Christian. Although this parameter cuts down on the number of qualified candidates, the selection of the president influences the politics of the Arab World. In the Middle East, states demonstrate their power through proxy conflicts. Iran and Saudi Arabia are dominant players in the region and invested in the outcomes of Lebanon’s political affairs.
Hezbollah favored Michel Aoun, who, prior to his election, led the the Free Patriotic Movement. Earlier in October, the former Prime Minister of Lebanon and current leader of the Future Movement Saad Hariri endorsed Michel Aoun. This shocked many, considering that Hariri has historically been a major opponent of Hezbollah, another significant political faction in Lebanon. Iran and Syria lend political and financial support to Hezbollah, tying their interests to Aoun’s election and Hariri’s endorsement. Furthermore, the United States considers Hezbollah a terrorist organizations, complicating U.S. foreign policy toward Lebanon and in the Middle East.
Rumors circulated that Hariri’s desire to fill the current Prime Minister position explains his endorsement, and, at the end of last week, he was nominated for this position. Ironically, Hariri’s Prime Ministerial position appears to undermine the influence of Hezbollah in the region, despite the fact that he endorsed Aoun earlier this month. Additionally, Hariri’s long time supporter, Saudi Arabia, is reassessing its relationship with its traditional ally due to an increasing frustration with Lebanon’s unstable political infrastructure.
These recent changes in Lebanese politics elicited mixed reviews from the general public. While many celebrated the election of Michel Aoun in the streets, others are less convinced that positive change is on the way. Demographically, young adults are especially disillusioned by the Lebanese government’s ineffectiveness and inability to resolve conflict and address basic needs. According to Al Jazeera, the Lebanese government has been unable to pass a budget since 2005. Julia, a current resident of Beirut told reporters, “I don't see a new president leading to the improvement of the economy - at least not for ordinary people." Citing concerns over security, Syrian refugees and their treatment, and unemployment, young people in Lebanon increasingly oppose the sectarian political system.
Bassel Salloukh, professor of political science at the Lebanese American University in Beirut, is not optimistic about the promised social and economic progress either. Earlier this year, in his piece for the Washington Post, he warned that the grassroots demands of cross-sectarian civil society will consistently combat the traditional order of the Lebanese powerful elite.
The gridlock and subsequent presidential elections speaks to issues of Arab identity and regional sectarian and geopolitical conflict. A new administration is unlikely to transform Lebanese politics, but could threaten to revitalize its sectarian roots.
Young Lebanese activists’ lack of faith in the government interestingly aligns with the millennial vote in the U.S. presidential election. Morale is low amongst this demographic in both regions, and revolution, protest, and anger dominate.
Jessica Robertson is a Junior at UC Berkeley studying Development Studies.
