The controversy surrounding the election of Donald Trump as US president made
many outside America have another look at how its electoral system works.
However, controversy is surely not limited to America; it extends to Lebanon,
a faraway small country that boasts being an 'institutional democratic state
built on consensus and entente.
Many pose questions about the logic behind the American political system which
values the electoral votes of individual states more than the direct popular
votes of the electorate. The fact is that the USA is a federal country, thus
its political representation needs to reflect two fundamental principles
without which no healthy democracy can survive:
-The first is simple direct democracy whereby the numerical majority has the
advantage over the numerical minority; and this is embodied in the House of
Representatives where each state is represented by a number of congressmen
relative to its population.
-The second is respect for national unity in a diverse society, where an
individual in a populous state must enjoy no advantage over another individual
from a less populous state before the federal law which must treat all
Americans equally. The principle of national unity is enshrined in the Senate
where all states, regardless of population, are equally represented by two
senators each.
This great vision has helped make the American political system as a whole,
one of the fairest and most advanced in the world. It has sustained an ever
growing and geographically expanding country since the 16th century,
attracting wave after wave of immigration; and through the years each American
state based on its topography, natural environment, and economic resources had
specific attributes and qualities despite free and smooth inter-state
movement.
Of course Lebanon is far too small compared to the USA. Its 'democratic
experience is also pretty modest to compare with that of Americas 'Founding
Fathers and the legislations and agreements they adopted, even though these
legislations and agreements failed to prevent the American Civil war
(1861-1865), some vestiges of which remain until today. In fact, Lebanon too
had a civil war in 1860 that helped create its almost 'independent status;
and as in Americas case, the vestiges of the war remain, while its borders
have changed.
Still, size and global influence aside, there is another major difference
between the American and Lebanese examples, which is that the Americans have
learnt from their experiences, respected their institutions, and stopped
bluffing themselves, which is not the case with the Lebanese.
In the USA no less than five presidents trailed their opponents in the popular
votes, but abiding by the Constitution, the process led them to the White
House. Moreover, despite the huge diversity in a country of 320 million
inhabitants, there remains a good deal of healthy co-existence. We dont hear
people calling every day for a new electoral law that enhances the share of
his or her ethnicity or religious sect. Nor do we hear of people calling for
foreign intervention in their favor in the light of changing international
policies.
Lebanons case, however, is totally different. Here, even the Lebanese
constitution does not deal with its people as citizens but rather as members
of sectarian flocks. The constitution which recognizes 17 sects, has
''permanently'' allocated each sect what has been deemed as its fair share of
governmental position although population changes are continuous as are
political disagreements.
Another interesting fact is that any Lebanese may spend his/her lifetime
within the confines of his/her sect without interacting with other sects,
beginning with birth, death, inheritance and marriage registries, and ending
with education, health and employment. Thus, religious sects in Lebanon are de
facto quasi-independent 'states, that have their own leaders, political
parties, schools, universities, hospitals, and even sport clubs!
Given this situation and bearing in mind the vestiges of the past, the
Lebanese have two living obsessions: the first is the 'unfairness lamented by
the Muslims who believe they are the majority that is long prevented from
enjoying what it deserved under the French Mandate (1920-1943); and the second
is the 'fear felt by the Christians towards the 'sea of Muslims surrounding
them. The latter, led at first to separating Mount Lebanon from its
surrounding area in 1861 and giving it the status of an 'autonomous district,
i.e. ''Mutassarrifiyya'', under the joint rule of the Ottoman Government and the
European Powers, in order to ensure the 'protection of the Christians. Then
in 1920, it led to the creation of the current Lebanon (Grand Liban) under a
Christian president, and a 6 to 5 parliamentary representation in the
Christians favour that lasted until the 'Taif Agreement in 1989.
Now, after ending 'the presidential vacuum and forming the new cabinet, all
that remains is electing a new parliament to replace the current one. The
latter ended its four year term in 2013, but due to ongoing disagreement the
scheduled elections were cancelled and its term extended. Still, disagreements
continue regarding under what electoral law the forthcoming elections should
be conducted, noting that almost all political parties and blocs refuse to
carry on under the current multiple seat constituency law, popularly known as
'The 1960 Law.
There are many alternatives being put forward by parties and blocs ranging
from full 'proportional representation as preferred by Hezbollah and
followers – which is understandable given its virtual armed hegemony – to the
'Greek Orthodox Law whereby each sect elects its own members of parliament,
including different 'mixed versions combining direct vote and PR.
One alternative, however, that seems to be intentionally and stubbornly
dismissed is the one calling for a bi-cameral parliament comprising: A Senate
or Upper House elected by each sect, whereby all religious sects are equally
represented and enjoy a 'veto on issues adversely affecting their interests;
and a House of Deputies or Representative, elected with no sectarian quota,
with Lebanon as a single constituency, thus encouraging proper issue-based
political parties after ridding the country of the two obsessions, i.e. the
Muslims with 'unfairness and the Christians with 'fear!
Why the idea of a Senate looks like being rejected out of hand, is not really
surprising, if one keeps in mind the Lebanese eternal gamble in external
forces and changes of regional and international balance of power. This
remains the case despite the fact that the Lebanese Constitution, as adopted
in Taif, called clearly for 'wide decentralization and a 'senate.
Indeed, it has become a habit of Lebanons factions to demand justice and
fairness when they are the underdogs, but seek hegemony when they feel they
are winning.
Given such a mentality, any authority devised to curtail the ambitions of the
powerful and defended the rights of the weak, has no chance of being accepted;
as every faction hopes one day to be powerful enough to monopolize the
country, and obliterate the others. Even the one who may be weak today would
rather hope for an opportune moment to gamble again, and settle old scores.
In short, this is 'electoral democracy – Lebanese Style!
Eyad Abu Shakra is the managing editor
of Asharq Al-Awsat. He has been with the newspaper since 1978.