The U.S.-Lebanon Dialogue Program at the Aspen Institute hosted a discussion about the upcoming Lebanese elections in an effort to contextualize the elections for U.S., regional and domestic interests and actors. David Ignatius moderated a presentation featuring Raghida Dergham and Les Campbell. The discussion is timely; Lebanese parliamentary elections will be held this week only three days after President Obama addresses Muslim audiences in Cairo on June 4. The elections’ outcome may indicate whether the U.S. and Middle Eastern governments will be able to charter a path towards democracy and a comprehensive regional peace.

David Ignatius introduced the discussion by providing an overview of the election and the emergence of what currently may be considered a ‘Post-American’ era in Lebanon, in which the U.S. influence in Lebanon has waned in recent years compared to other regional actors. Ignatius highlighted Lebanon’s natural ‘ambiguity’ as a religiously diverse state at the crossroads of the East and West. He questioned whether this election and new engagement by the Obama Administration will change Lebanon’s in-between status and reduce its ambiguity.

Lebanon will be part of a larger strategy in the peace process as the U.S. moves to engage Syria and foster a Syrian-Israeli peace track. Ignatius questioned what a Lebanese negotiation process would look like with Syria, and whether it might follow or precede a Syrian arrangement with Israel. 

Les Campbell discussed the findings of NDI’s pre-election mission to Lebanon and emphasized the institutional and political developments taking place. He argues that the election will result in a small shift at the margins of government and are likely to produce a national unity government. Because change will be marginal, the elections are not an existential battle for Lebanese identity, but are an opportunity to reform and strengthen Lebanese institutions and political culture. The new Election Law (2008) has impacted campaigns and has influenced important cultural and political changes by including financial disclosure laws and media coverage equality.

Ziad Baroud, Lebanon’s Minister of the Interior, has proved to be impartial and professional in his commitment to a transparent process. The presence of the Supervisory Commission on the Election Campaign (SCEC) is a precursor to a genuinely independent election commission, such as in Mexico. Strengthening the elections’ credibility, international observers have been invited as election monitors, complementing newly-accredited domestic observers who are expected to evolve into vibrant local civil society movements that will maintain checks on government accountability. Challenges, however, such as vote-buying and voter intimidation, persist. This is particularly salient since one of the candidates is an armed party.

Lebanon’s elections function by ‘write in’ voting--there is no pre-printed ballot. This allows parties to broker deals with candidates to be dropped or added at last minute. The distribution of colored leaflets listed with party candidates allows party leaders to know how many votes they receive before results are released. Campbell stressed that the lack of pre-printed ballots contributes to the fact that Lebanese democracy is still flawed and is uniquely exercised, with decisions coming less from voters’ consciences. 

On a logistical level, security, traffic and voter transportation arrangements in preparation for the first one-day election are be a challenge to the current government. From the perspective of election observers, the greatest challenge to their mission and the stability of Lebanese democracy is that one party [Hizbullah] is armed and possesses a military capacity that rivals that of the government. The government must provide robust security on election day to diminish intimidation and allow voters to participate freely and fairly. 

Raghida Dergham focused on the regional and international context and implications of the Lebanese elections, noting that Lebanon is the regional experimental lab for democracy. The election will indicate if regional reform is on the horizon or if positions will harden. There are many international players interested in Lebanon’s election including Syria, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Palestinian factions, the U.S., France, and Russia. Les Campbell noted that Syria will not allow its interests in this election to derail their strategic interest in its U.S. dialogue.

Dergham focused on Lebanon as a proxy battleground between Iranian and American efforts to exert ideological and material influence in the Middle East. Lebanon is the crown jewel for Iran that desperately seeks to dominate the region. Additionally, the international community must be attentive to Israeli potential to use Lebanon as a platform to distract from an Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

March 14 is the small majority coalition, which evolved from demonstrations that led to the removal of Syrian forces from Lebanon. It is inconsistently backed by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Secretary Clinton made no promise or commitment to the future Lebanese government. This was reinforced by Vice-President Biden’s claim that “We will evaluate the shape of our assistance program based on the composition of the new government and the policies it advocates.” Dergham argued that high-quality U.S. military aid must be provided to Lebanon to ensure parity with Hizbullah.

March 8 is a marriage of convenience between Michel Aoun, who is fixated on the presidency, and Hizbullah, which is obsessed with retaining its weapons. March 8 enjoys support from Russia and Syria and is systematically bankrolled by Iran. Hassan Nasrallah speaks openly about his alliance with Iran, which places no conditions on Hizbullah and is willing to provide arms and military aid. Dergham says, “[the] U.S. has spent more than $400 million in security and military aid to Lebanon since 2006. If Hezbollah wins…American largesse could well come to an end.” If Lebanon is lost to Iran and Syria, it will be very difficult or impossible to “get back.” A March 8 victory would likely unsettle Israel; would Lebanon turn into Gaza? Would Israel attack?

Dergham asserts that the U.S. has two options if it seeks to undermine Iran’s and Hizbullah’s logic of resistance: 1) force peace on Israel that ends occupation and therefore take away their pretext for interference in Lebanon; or 2) force a deal on Iran that will demand ‘hands off’ Lebanon. She warns against assuming that Hizbullah will win the elections or overplaying a March 8 victory. Better to leave space for a surprise, as the U.S. would be ill-advised to take the results for granted just yet.