Lebanon's Presidential Elections

An Overview

With Damascus announcing it will wait until mid-September before taking a position on a possible of extension of Emile Lahoud's term as Lebanon's president, hopes have faded for a quick resolution to what has become a paralysing political saga.

Lebanon's president is elected by Lebanon's parliament, the 128-member Chamber of Deputies. According to Article 49 of the Lebanese constitution, The President's term is for six years. He may not be re-elected until six years after the expiration of his last mandate. But as in many important Lebanese matters, Syria retains the final authority. Witness its ability to push through a one-off constitutional amendment in 1995 allowing for the extension of the President Elias Hrawi's term for an additional three years.

It is no secret that Damascus would like to keep Lahoud around a bit longer as well, but with Washington stepping up its criticism of Syria's role in Lebanon, the Syrian leadership is weighing its options carefully.

Meanwhile, sorely needed economic reforms have stalled as Lahoud's tight-lipped stance and Damascus' wait-and-see attitude have combined to keep everyone guessing about the make-up of Lebanon's future leadership.

Opinions on the matter make for almost daily headlines, with the anti-extensionists on the march of late. Resisting a constitutional amendment in the name of democracy and Lebanese sovereignty, the loudest voices have come from Lahoud's traditional opponents, including members of the Qornet Shehwan Christian opposition group and the National Liberal Party, as well as former Prime Minister Salim Hoss, Public Works and Transport Minister Najib Mikati and long-time foe and current prime minister, Rafik Hariri.

The pro-extensionist camp, on the other hand, has kept a lower profile while it waits to read the signals from Damascus.

While seeking confirmation of his appointment before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee in late April, incoming US Ambassador to Lebanon Jeffrey Feltman stressed, Syria should realise that it has to stay out of Lebanon's presidential elections. It should not select Lebanon's next president, and called on Damascus to respect Lebanon's full sovereignty.

But on Monday, An-Nahar, a leading Lebanese newspaper, reported that according to an unnamed Western diplomat, the US was now merely insisting that Lebanon's constitution be respected - perhaps leaving open the possibility of a constitutional amendment, as in 1995.

At the same time, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has sought to distance himself from the debate. During a recent interview with two Kuwaiti newspapers, Assad maintained that the presidential vote was a purely Lebanese issue. But shortly thereafter, Assem Kansou, the head of the Lebanese branch of Syria's ruling Ba'ath Party, said he was in favour of an extension, going so far as to criticise Hariri for expressing his opposition.

Damascus sees Washington's hard-line stance as part of a larger American effort to weaken Syria's regional position, thus raising the need for a strong pro-Syrian replacement should Lahoud's term not be extended. Just as important are concerns about the ability of other potential candidates to serve as a counterweight to Hariri, who has been critical of Syria.

Just who those candidates might be remains unclear. So Far, four members of Parliament have thrown their hat into the ring, including Robert Ghanem, Boutros Harb and Nayla Moawad, Lebanon's first-ever female candidate for the presidency, Mikhael El Daher. Several high-profile figures have also been discussed as potential candidates, including Health Minister Suleiman Franjieh, Metn MP Nassib Lahoud, Tripoli MP Jean Obeid, Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh and General Michel Suleiman.

Any candidate would face a difficult balancing act, needing to lighten the pressure on Damascus by exhibiting popular support at home without arousing Syrian fears that such popularity could lead to excessive independence once in office.

For the time being, Syria is content to invite potential candidates to Damascus, while floating various scenarios in an effort to gauge Lebanese public opinion. A cross-sectarian poll published in late June and conducted by the Beirut weekly al-Shiraa showed 69% of Lebanese opposing an extension or renewal of Lahoud's term while 90% reject the idea of Syria appointing the Lebanese president.

Lebanese opposition to Syrian interference - and US pressure - may set the costs of any heavy-handed effort to push through an extension of Lahoud's term too high. But with the regional situation still unsettled, keeping Lahoud on becomes that much more important, providing a highly valued commodity in Damascus these days: stability.

Following a recess in August, the Lebanese parliament will reconvene in September, but Parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri recently announced that any amendment to Article 49 would not be taken up in parliament before October - in other words, only after Damascus has made its position known.

In the meantime, the Lebanese sit and wait, wondering who their parliamentarians will be allowed to select come November.

Source: Oxford Busineess Group, July 16, 2004

Who picks the   president?

Two electors will choose the president of Lebanon, Washington and Damascus, irrespective of the wishes of the Lebanese and the public debates that have heated up in anticipation of the upcoming 2004 presidential elections.
Since the 1983 bombing of the US Marines headquarters in Beirut, Washington has adopted an almost hands-off approach toward Lebanon and has given Damascus tacit approval to tighten its grip on the country. The last overt manifestation of this policy toward Lebanese presidential elections was in 1988, when US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy tried to impose a pro-Syrian presidential candidate and told the Lebanese: “MP Mikhael Daher or chaos.”
And chaos it was with exiled former Army Commander General Michel Aoun heading a military government in Baabda and former Prime Minister Salim Hoss heading a civilian one in West Beirut. They were the bloodiest days of the civil war, when all were against all. During those dark days, Lebanon witnessed the bloodiest internecine battles and the highest number
of emigrants.
In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the US “war on terror,” Washington’s security concerns in the Middle East more than any other part of the world have been blown out of proportion and have become obsessions. Thus, it seems that as long as Syria keeps Lebanon under control, Washington will go with Damascus’ choice for the president of Lebanon.
But what about Damascus? What does it want to see in a Lebanese president? Damascus requires two things: blind loyalty to Syria, and enough clout to control the Lebanese military that will allow Syria to manage things in Lebanon for its favor by proxy. Since President Emile Lahoud has faithfully fulfilled both requirements during his term, his chances of staying in power are big.
However, in the shadow of the mounting US pressure on Damascus that started after the invasion of Iraq, will Washington in 2004 possibly break the tacit approval it has often given to pro-Syrian Lebanese presidential candidates? Is Washington going to demand new requirements from Syria to let Damascus have its way in Lebanon? Despite Syrian rhetoric about sovereignty and free decision, indications show that Damascus has lent its intelligence information on extremist Muslim groups to the CIA and that it is, in particular, helping Washington in its war against Al-Qaeda. Also, concerning Syria’s long porous border wit Iraq, Damascus announced that it had sealed all official checkpoints. In addition, in response to Washington’s demands for reform in the Arab world, Damascus has announced that the new Naji al-Otari Cabinet has one particular goal ­ reform. Thus, it is unlikely that Washington will block a pro-Syrian hand-picked Lebanese presidential candidate.
This joint US-Syrian approach to the Lebanese presidential elections most probably was on the table of discussions between French President Jacques Chirac and his guest, the Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros in Paris last week. Sfeir said that he was against any constitutional amendment which would consequently allow a president to stay in office unless it was necessary, leaving some leeway because he knew that this could be interpreted as a direct position against Lahoud. But Sfeir also voiced his desperation, saying that when it came to the Lebanese issue, Washington did only what was in its interests, not the interests of the Lebanese.
Lahoud also seems to be itchy about Washington’s “vote” in 2004. But he cannot change Cabinets like Damascus does to show that he has also jumped in the band wagon of Arab reforms. Thus, he has been left with his media stunts in his reform campaign.
One may say that Lahoud’s campaign for reform at the end of his term is futile and is obviously mere lip service, and that he will not fool the Americans. It may be true. But after all, Washington’s demands for Arab reform also do not seem to be serious. Well, Lahoud is just like his allies, giving the Americans a taste of their own medicine.

Professor Hicham Chihab, research associate at the Center for Arab and Middle Eastern Studies, the American University of Beirut, wrote the above commentary, which appeared in The Daily Star on October 10, 2003. He can be reached at hc10@aub.edu.lb