By Gareth Smyth
Lebanon’s search for a new president will do little to hold back the slide towards chaos. Compromise is not in the air
“Ousama”, a Shia Lebanese man from the south, was recently robbed at knifepoint by two Druze men in Lebanon’s Beqaa valley, where he has gone for years to sell fish. Urged by relatives to tell the police or the Popular Socialist party, the Druze political group, he replied: “Do you want me to be killed?”
Anecdotal, of course, but the story illustrates the danger facing Lebanon as its parties, based on religious sects, box themselves into an impasse. Parliament has not met since October 2006, and shortly after that, six Shia Muslim members left the government, which they subsequently called “illegal” because it no longer included all sects.
Today, buildings in central Beirut are surrounded by coiled, Baghdad-style razor wire to keep at bay opposition protestors led by Hizbollah, the Shia Muslim group, encamped in tatty tents.
Few now expect parliament to meet to elect a president, as the constitution requires, before incumbent Emile Lahoud stands down on November 23.
The root of the disagreement between the ruling March 14 coalition – made up of Christian parties, Sunni and Druze groups – and the Shia was UN resolution 1559, adopted in 2004 and calling for the disarming of Hizbollah’s military wing.
“This was an Israeli request and a UN response,” Mohammad Raad, head of Hizbollah’s parliamentary group, tells Emerging Markets. “It is interference in the right of the Lebanese people to defend their land.”
A country of 5 million people and 18 sects, Lebanon is vulnerable to growing regional tensions between Shia and Sunni Muslims. It is also part of the struggle between the US on one side and Syria and Iran on the other.
Damascus, previously the power broker in Lebanon, has been licking its wounds since its military withdrawal in 2005 after the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri, and is also blamed by March 14 for a string of other political killings.
The overall result is rising bad blood between Lebanon’s factions and sects that has paralyzed constitutional politics, undermined international confidence, and stymied growth.
Economic reform plans
All agree in theory on the importance of implementing an economic reform programme agreed with international donors at the Paris conference of January 2007 – the so-called Paris III – and which is monitored by the IMF through an Emergency Post-Conflict agreement (EPCA).
The IMF has praised the efforts of the government, led by prime minister Fouad Siniora, in maintaining stability after last year’s war with Israel and in establishing new management structures to oversee reform.
But Riad Salameh, the central bank governor, who has kept monetary discipline during these times, says the targets of Paris III cannot be met without political progress.
“Realistically, if you have a political environment that is stable, and where the constitutional institutions are performing, the reforms proposed by the government to the conference of Paris III could be enacted,” he tells Emerging Markets. “They rely effectively on some revenue measures, on privatization, on savings based on increasing efficiency in public administration or publically owned enterprises, like Electricite du Liban.”
Possible candidates
Sources in the bank judge that Salameh, the bank’s governor since 1993, is himself a serious candidate for the presidency, although he will not openly declare his candidacy much less campaign. “This is partly because this is the tradition in Lebanon,” says one, “but especially because he does not want to jeopardize the bank’s independence.”
Similar thinking lies behind the possible candidacy of Michel Suleiman, the army commander, although the candidacy of either man might require a constitutional amendment that forbids “front rank” public servants running for office.
Declared candidates, who according to the constitution must be Maronite Christians, all have their backers. From the ruling March 14 coalition, Nassib Lahoud and Boutros Harb have tossed their hats in the ring.
Former army commander Michel Aoun, once an implacable foe of Syria and now an advocate of reconciliation with Hizbollah, is the leading figure from the opposition. Jean Obeid and Michel Edde are possible compromise candidates.But although discussions have been taking place between the different groups, compromise is not in the air, and politicians’ public insults are plumbing new depths of colloquial Arabic. Lebanon’s political system is based on reaching consensus between the sects and is ill-placed to function without it.
The constitution stipulates that a president should be elected by a two-thirds majority of deputies but allows for a second ballot in which an absolute majority would be sufficient. This means the narrow majority of the March 14 group could be enough to elect a president, and there are voices within the coalition calling for that to be done.
“The democratic institutions of Lebanon must function again.” Jihad Azour, finance minister, tells Emerging Markets. “It’s better to have agreement rather than a [simple] majority, but at the end of the day you need a president.”
Such a prospect has encouraged talk in Beirut of two governments, each controlling part of the country. It is a scenario short of war but ripe with confusion and civil unrest.
“March 14 wants a president from their group, someone who wants to disarm the resistance and make peace with Israel,” says Hizbollah’s Raad. “So either they elect a president on 50% plus 1, or the Siniora government takes on the presidential powers. Either way, the government is illegal.”
For the Aounists, the stalemate should be overcome through renewed dialogue between March 14 and the opposition.“The power struggle is not more important than the existential issue of the nation,” says Ibrahim Kanaan, a leading member of the Free Patriotic Movement, which Aoun leads. “We are calling for agreement on a minimal agenda before we choose a president. Is the president a technical employee, or someone who articulates a vision for the country? Building trust within Lebanon, and involving Hizbollah in a process in which it disarms, means engagement.”
Kanaan argues the international community, rather than taking sides, should work to encourage consensus within Lebanon. “The way to have economic development and to implement UN resolutions is to preserve unity,” he tells Emerging Markets. “What do we gain if we implement the resolutions and lose the country?”