Q&A: Can Lebanon’s New President Defuse Major Crises?
The Lebanese
Parliament’s selection this week of General Michel Aoun as president ends 2 ½ years of a leadership vacuum that mired decision-making on fundamental economic,
social and political
crises facing Lebanon.
The Parliament had been unable to elect a new president since May 2014, even as it faced emergencies such as the influx of more than 1 million refugees
from the war in neighboring Syria. USIP Middle East and North Africa
Director Elie Abouaoun
examines the potential
effect of the appointment of Aoun, a former interim prime minister
and Army chief of staff.
Syrian refugees
live in a factory bombed by the Israeli military
in 1982 near Faida, Lebanon. Photo Courtesy
of The New York Times/ Lynsey
Addario
How
did this decision to appoint
Aoun as president come about?
The election occurred because of a convergence of interests among major Lebanese
political leaders and parties, namely Aoun as head of the largely Christian
Free Patriotic Movement;
former Premier Saad Hariri, the son of assassinated Lebanese leader Rafik Hariri and head of the mainly Sunni Future Movement;
the Iranian-backed Shia party and militia Hezbollah; and the Lebanese
Forces, a formerly
Christian militia that became a political party. For different reasons, each of these decided that having Aoun elected would be rewarding.
For General
Aoun, this election
is an honorable cap to his political
career after years of exile and exclusion
and a platform for his party to wield more authority within Lebanon’s power structures. The appointment was made possible via a deal in which Aoun, as president, nominates
Hariri for a return to the premiership. For Hariri, it is a
good opportunity to boost his fading political
leadership among his Sunni constituents as prime minister. For Hezbollah, it is a gain both symbolically—Aoun has been Hezbollah’s official candidate since 2014, as well as politically, since Aoun and Hezbollah have been unlikely
allies since 2006. For the Lebanese
Forces, it was a bitter choice they had to embrace after Hariri shunned their preferences by supporting a foe, Sulaiman
Frangieh, to become president
in 2015.
What will change in Lebanon after this election?
The Lebanese
decision-making process is complex and regulated by a check-and-balance system. Therefore, it is hard for any elected or appointed
official to implement
an agenda that does not enjoy a broad political
consensus. The major challenge in Lebanon is that the political and personal interests
of the major actors tend to get in the way of common-sense reforms. From this perspective, it will be hard to imagine how the newly elected president
will be able to navigate
through this complex landscape with an agenda promoting genuine reform.
This is especially true because people familiar with the agreement
that enabled the appointment tell me that it only addresses the presidency
and the premiership and doesn’t go into political, social or economic
issues. The first test will be the formation
of a new government—Hariri being named prime minister and then selecting
a Cabinet. Once this is done, various ideas and projects for reform will be put on the table, but the final endorsement of any of those proposals will be subject to consensus
among the major political players.
Accordingly, there are very high expectations from the new president and prime minister and a high likelihood
of public frustration again in the end. So nothing
major is likely to change in Lebanon.
So why does this development matter?
There are multiple but incremental measures
that could help improve conditions
in Lebanon over the longer term. One of them is an honest discussion among the Lebanese
political actors about the best form of governance based on today’s realities.
The country is still administered through a largely centralized system inherited from French colonial rule from the 1920s through the mid-1940s. Today’s demographic, economic, social and political
realities in Lebanon and the region make this system obsolete.
What’s the alternative to this centralized system?
Lebanon needs to move to a politically and administratively decentralized system that allows local constituencies to choose their governors and hold them accountable. Such a system also would address a lot of the concerns resulting from citizens’
historical and chronic
“fear of the other” in a diverse
but divided society:
Sunnis are afraid of what they see as the excessive power of the Shias, especially
in the form of Hezbollah;
Shias always look at the broader environment in the region, where Sunnis are the majority,
and fear that a weaker Iran will allow Sunnis to oppress them again; and both Christians
and Druze behave politically as minority groups, always reverting
to a defensive posture.
In a sense, every constituency in Lebanon considers
itself a minority in some way or other and nurtures fears and concerns accordingly. A decentralized political
and administrative system would help tremendously.
Is there any support for something like that?
There are some political
parties that have backed such a direction
publicly, and others are discussing the idea internally. But it’s hard to know whether this concept could gain momentum because some of the strongest players might understandably resist any dilution
of their powers.
2016
No comments:
Post a Comment