It is one thing to try and understand vote composition along the lines of various groups, be they defined by gender, social class, age etc. And in Lebanon of course, sect becomes the overriding category. But to take this to the level of judging whether someone was voted in with the “right” votes or not is a dangerous game of numbers. That the balance was tipped by the Shiite vote in favor of the Free Patriotic Movement in Byblos (which, it turns out, is not even accurate given the margin of ca. 8,000 votes) and Baabda or by the Sunni vote in favor of March 14 in Zahleh, does that make it less legitimate? Even in a thoroughly sectarian system such as ours, a citizen of a non-majority sect in a certain district is still represented — on a practical level, at least — by the parliamentarians from that district. Instead, s/he is being treated like a resident alien with voting rights. I am surprised no one has suggested population transfers yet.
But it does not stop here. Hints of the “outside” vote of the Armenians were not absent from this electoral battle either. Harping on the Greek Orthodox tendon of Ashrafiyah was also an electoral strategy — and a successful one by the looks of it. Where does it stop? Is a Greek Orthodox vote cast in Matn the “right” one? Is a Maronite vote cast in Ashrafiyah the “right” one? If my mother is Greek Orthodox Lebanese and my father a Shiite Iraqi and I have been naturalized in 1995 as Shiite, but have been living in France since 1996 with my Maronite husband and came back to vote for Aoun in Byblos, would that make mine a “right” vote? I wonder.
June 10, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Excellent post. Counter-sectarian voting is actually the one of the few slightly healthy signs of democracy in a country where sectarian gerrymandering of districts is taken to absurd levels.
June 10, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Isn’t cross-pollination the only hope? As an electoral activity, it seems a lot more fun than a blank ballot.
June 11, 2009 at 5:40 am
I’m also for cross-pollination with Gov’t subsidies :D
June 11, 2009 at 9:24 am
Great post. Wasn’t the assumption that “christians” were being elected (and appointed, I suppose) by “non christians” that prompted Aoun to push for the 1960 law? For me, their insistence on that was an eye opener about the extent of Aoun’s ‘reformist’ and ‘secular’ intentions.
On the other hand, as a foreigner, I find the treatment of the “Armenian” vote intriguing, everybody counting their votes out of the “christian” ballot. I’ve been in Lebanon long enough not to be “chocked” by it. And I know them having their own language, university, etc., and a party that pretends to federate its majority, helps to think in that way. Still…
June 11, 2009 at 10:45 am
May,
Yes, the assumption was that it would “protect the Christian vote”. But that is not Aoun’s demand alone, various Christian leaders have broached the topic and using the qada as an electoral district is a favorite suggestion. Sfeir was all for it (after Aoun’s rebellion, he “does not mind it”). In 2008, FPM MP’s presented a law in parliament proposing the qada as electoral district – minus Hasbayya, Hermel, and West Biqa, of course. We wouldn’t want to touch these.