Perhaps there were no real winners or losers in last weekend's poll, writes MICHAEL JANSENin Beirut
LEBANON WAS not transformed into a bastion of the West by the majority obtained by the US-supported ruling coalition in Sunday’s parliamentary poll. Although hailed as a victory for Arab “moderates,” analysts here pointed out at a post-election debriefing that the political balance in the country remains the same as it was before the poll. Although the Syrian- and Iranian-supported opposition did not win the slender majority predicted by polls, Paul Salem of the Carnegie Middle East Centre stated firmly “nobody won and nobody lost”. The ruling bloc of Sunni Muslims, Christians and Druze secured 71 seats in the 128-member parliament, one less than in the election of 2005, while the opposition bloc of Shias, Christians and Greek Orthodox took 57 seats, gaining one.
Dr Salem said the Hizbullah movement, which leads the opposition bloc, might be “comfortable” with the outcome because Israel has been deprived of a Hizbullah-formed government as a pretext to attack Lebanon, and the US, EU and their Arab allies cannot continue airing worries about ties between such a government and Syria and Iran, considered “radical” actors on the regional scene.
He also observed the issue of Hizbullah’s weapons will be addressed within the context of “national dialogue”. Therefore, there will be “no military showdown” between the Lebanese army and Hizbullah’s much more powerful armed wing.
Furthermore, the new government, expected to be led by ruling coalition chief Saad Hariri, will not enter into separate peace negotiations with Israel, a fear expressed by the opposition.
Mr Hariri, backed by Riyadh, has pledged to abide by the Saudi-sponsored Arab plan proposing full normalisation of relations with Israel in exchange for full Israeli withdrawal from Arab territory occupied in 1967.
An independent commentator explained the result by saying the opposition, which secured 100,000 more votes than Hariri’s bloc, failed to win because its member parties campaigned only in their sectarian constituencies. These factions did not attempt to reach voters of all sects. Gen Michel Aoun, the populist Christian candidate backed by his community in 2005, did not exert himself because he expected another landslide in his favour, although he had alienated many Christians by forging an alliance with Hizbullah. Finally, Hizbullah secretary general Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah upset many Sunnis by reminding them their militiamen were defeated by Hizbullah’s fighters during clashes in Beirut in May 2008.
The source contrasted the opposition’s failure to mount a winning campaign with the all-out effort of the ruling alliance worked according to a national election strategy. This was adopted by all bloc members and they operated as a unit. While this bloc had more money (Saudi Arabia is rumoured to have poured in $300 million), effective campaigning ultimately decided the race.
Hilal Khashan, head of the department of political science at the American University of Beirut, said that since the election did not alter the relationship between the blocs, they have no alternative but to co-operate. However, negotiations could take some time and involve protracted wrangling because the opposition conditions participation in the government on being granted a veto on policy.
Mr Hariri’s allies reject this demand and argue that, since they won most seats, they should rule. If Lebanon is to enjoy peace and quiet, he will have to persuade them that a “consensual” coalition of the country’s main political forces must be formed.
Mr Hariri may also have to contend with a challenge from president Michel Suleiman who wants to boost his powers by surrounding himself with a parliamentary grouping of six to nine deputies defecting from one or other of the blocs. Therefore, the task of forging a new Lebanese government will involve diplomatic skills which could severely test Mr Hariri, who plunged into politics after the 2005 assassination of his father, former premier Rafik Hariri.