Apr 1, 2014

One of the characteristics of the presidential elections in Lebanon is that they pass by on the surface of political life unnoticed, without having the slightest role in shedding light on the fundamental challenges facing the country. The upcoming presidential elections lack any electoral programs and discussions, which are supposed to accompany elections and determine priorities and propose solutions.

There are no campaigns and no official candidates. The constitutional time frame for the election of the Lebanese president started on March 25, and no candidate has yet officially presented his candidacy for office in accordance with democratic rules and customs. On the contrary, the more the election date approaches, the more cautious potential candidates are, as if they are awaiting a sign from abroad. They avoid any media appearance, and if they ever do appear in the media they smooth the edges and remain careful not to make any mistake that might undermine their image as a candidate of consensus. In other words, the closer we get to election day, the more paralyzed political action in the country becomes and the discussions on contentious issues decrease. Thus, this pivotal moment of democratic life is slipping right through the hands of Lebanon.

Since the outbreak of the civil war in the mid-1970s, and despite the signing of the Taif Agreement, this small country remains unable to restore all the elements of its sovereignty, especially the exclusivity of arms to the Lebanese legitimate military forces. Lebanon remained an arena where regional powers settle their differences at the expense of the state and its institutions. This constituted the basic obstacle that prevented the regulation of constitutional action, including the election of the president of the republic. But truth be told, the country is not taking advantage of the constitutional time frame, despite the nature of the parliamentary system based on pluralism of sects and affiliations. This step would have helped strengthen the social contract and consecrated national unity, by referring to the people as the source of authority to identify their collective options.

The current Lebanese constitutional order is inherited from the French. When Lebanon was under the French Mandate, it adopted the constitutional order of the French Third Republic, which collapsed in 1940. Under this constitution, the French National Assembly — consisting of the Chamber of Representatives and the Senate — used to elect the president. It is worth mentioning that the French Constitution was amended twice, and today the French president is elected directly by the people, which is a fundamental reform for the sake of the consolidation of democracy. The Taif Agreement, which was signed in 1989, introduced fundamental constitutional amendments mostly focusing on the redistribution of power between sectarian institutions and components. Ironically, it maintained and even consecrated the presidential electoral system. This was probably done to consecrate the parliamentary nature of the republic, because any measure to refer to the people’s will used to be seen as a deviation toward a presidential regime and a consolidation of the Christians’ position at the expense of other sects.

In brief, the presidential elections are more like a consensual process reached by the heads of parliamentary blocs, i.e., sect leaders. Most importantly, the regional powers sponsoring these leaders have the final say. Therefore, the election of or the consensus on a president through a regional electoral event is primarily subject to the regional give and take or consensus.