The outcome of Sunday’s elections here in Lebanon shocked observers worldwide. Contrary to paranoid predictions of a Hezbollah-led landslide by the “March 8″ opposition coalition, the western-leaning Sunni and Christian “March 14″ alliance maintained a sizable majority. The outcome has been called a setback for Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria and a gain for the West, Israel, and for the Sunnis.
So what happened? As always, there are a number of theories; here are some of the most interesting.
The Obama Effect
Could Hezbollah’s anti-imperialist schtick be weakened by the fact that the “global imperialist leader” is a good-looking black guy who is sympathetic to the Palestinian plight and quotes the Koran? Could the political team of the “Party of God” be reminiscing about the days when they had a gun-slingin’ Texan opponent to energize the base? Maybe, but this theory has some weak points. First, politics in “The Zionist Entity” have moved as far to the right as Washington has to the left, and Israel is doing all the provoking it can. Indeed, Israeli “military training maneuvers” near the Lebanese border may have been intended to make this point very clear. Likewise, Hezbollah voters aren’t exactly swings; they are fed by a comprehensive cradle-to-grave welfare program and aren’t likely to bite the nipple anytime soon, regardless of any well-spoken U.S. president.
The Fear Vote
Traveling around Lebanon, you can’t miss the plethora of billboards juxtaposing scary images of Hezbollah guerrillas with pictures of delicate Lebanese children. The intent of this message is very clearly aimed at fear-prone Christians. With Christians significantly over-represented in the electoral system, and their leaders split between Shia and Sunni alliances, Lebanon’s small Christian population were to be the deciding block in this election. The fear campaign may just have been enough for Christians to err on the side of the more familiar Sunni alliance.
Are they even trying?
Did Hezbollah really even want to win at all? Imagine you’re Hassan Nasrallah (even without the O&A makeover). You already run the most powerful army in the country, have territorial sovereignty, and a welfare state to brag about to boot. If you win the elections, you would be graced with a larger and more dysfunctional bureaucracy, potentially sans the international grease to keep the machine running smoothly (à la Hamas).
Any legitimacy you might gain from being an elected government might not be recognized by the West, and then there is the difficulty of running the government with a wacky coalition of Christians et al. Plus the greatly-increased threat of (another) Israeli assault. All of this might make you think twice about competing in a contest that you don’t really want to win, or running only 11 candidates (10 of whom won).
It’s getting worse…
In reality, the balance of power hasn’t actually changed much at all since the last round. Despite a war between Israel and Hezbollah and significant changes in the electoral law, the number of seats won by the two main coalitions was almost identical to the results of the elections in 2005 (only one seat difference).
What has changed — and probably for the worse — is the sectarian breakdown of the coalitions. All but 3 Sunni seats were won by March 14 and conversely, all but 3 Shia seats were won by March 8th candidates. In 2005 there was more mixing.
Complicated? It gets worse. The losing March 8th list actually won the popular vote by a landslide 10%, but because of Lebanon’s unequal electoral system, they didn’t win the parliament. With minimal conflict, high voter turnout, and a squeaky clean process, Sunday’s elections were great step forward for the country and the region. Hezbollah has accepted the result, albeit a bit begrudgingly. However, the most difficult part may be yet to come, as forming a government in this fragmented and unstable land is no task for wusses.