Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

June 7, 2009
EU And Lebanon Elections

There are two interesting elections today. The Europe Union is voting for a new parliament as is Lebanon.

In Europe the turnout will be record low and non-centric parties will likely be the big winners. Still – important policy changes are unlikely to come from it.

The reason for the first issue are the media. In the news, European politics do not happen at all. The news categories are local, national and international with international mostly presenting world politics. EU policies, while having lots of local effects and national effects, do not come up in these two categories unless some local or national politicians needs an excuse for some stupidity and says "Brussels made me do it." In the international news category the EU only shows up as a single actor.

So from reading a normal newspaper or watching TV news it is impossible for normal folks to understand the importance of the EU parliament and its policies. One might seem some intend behind this.

The win of non-central parties will be the result of the economic woes and the mess the big centralist parties made out of it.

The Lebanon elections are probably more interesting in their immediate effects.

Except for very few seats the Lebanon voting districts are certain to vote for a specific sectarian/tribal/paternalistic party that never changes.

In the few districts were change is possible, every party is trying to bribe the people to vote for them.

Lebanon does not have official pre-printed ballots. Each party prints its own ballots with a kind of secret serial number and hands it out together with the bribe money to people who sell their votes. If they do not find that ballot during the later count of the votes the unsuccessfully bribed are in trouble.

This round up to $1 billion is said to be spend for such bribes. The Saudis spend money to prop up the ruling March 14 and Hariri lists and Iran and Syria are said to help the opposition March 8 group which includes Hizbullah and the Christians around General Aoun.

Whoever wins the outcome will likely be another shared cabinet with the loser getting a third of the cabinet seats that are needed to veto certain policies. Anything else would mean further civil strife and currently no one of the major actors is really interest in that.

If the March 8 group achieves a majority the international reaction will be interesting. Israel will scream about a new "Iran in the north" and the U.S. may stop the money and old-weapon give-aways to the Lebanese army. This would hardy hurt Lebanon or its people. The army is for-internal-use-only anyway.

It is time for the Lebanese to shun external interference into their affairs. A slim opposition win would be a good start to achieve that.

Posted by b on June 7, 2009 at 15:51 UTC | Permalink
Comments

Debka is sure March 8 is going to win.
Angry Arab is betting everyone that March 14 is going to win.
Both are managing expectations because it is better to be pleasantly surprised than disappointed.
In terms of money, March 14 put definitely outspent its opponents. For that reason, I expect a slim March 14 win.
But the last election Lebanon was a different country, still in shock over the recent Hariri assassination, before the 2006 war. March 8 will probably do better than last time, except the money the Saudis are throwing in.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 7 2009 16:15 utc | 1

Angry Arab is telling us that Michel Aoun seems angry and grouchy, implying, I suppose, that the results are not in March 8th’s favor. It may be that Hizbullah is better off not being responsible for the Lebanese government. Still, a March 14 win would be interpreted in the Western Press as a big rebuke to Hizb and talk of disarming will begin anew. We’ll never hear the end of it. Winning close to half, but slightly less might be enough to keep their critics silent.

Posted by: Lysander | Jun 7 2009 17:31 utc | 2

Right-wing Europe

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 7 2009 22:43 utc | 3

Interesting article Why Hezbollah Doesn’t Really Want to Win

Regardless of its precise makeup, once in power, a Hezbollah-led government would encounter serious policy challenges. Although most states would likely maintain some modicum of relations with a Hezbollah-led government — unlike with the Hamas government in Gaza — political, military, and economic support would decline dramatically. The United States would curtail support for the Lebanese military — almost $500 million since 2006. European countries might suspend large-scale economic aid. And Saudi Arabia and the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which have been strong backers of fiscal and monetary stability in Lebanon, would scale down their public and private investments.
The state is already carrying a public debt that is 186 percent of GDP and regularly runs a massive deficit. If international support were to decline, it would spell serious trouble for a Lebanon already struggling to avoid widespread unemployment and economic collapse. In addition, despite its populist rhetoric, a Hezbollah-led government would be hard-pressed to broaden social programs and reduce taxes.
Hezbollah also knows that an outright electoral victory might make Israel less hesitant to attack; in such a case, Lebanon’s Western friends, supportive of the March 14 coalition, might not help it. Nasrallah has intimated that in such a circumstance, he would turn to Iran for military and economic support, which would trigger negative reactions from the United States, numerous European countries, and Sunni Arab countries.
Ultimately, shouldering such complex domestic and foreign-policy burdens might not be what Hezbollah wants. The Party of God has been most comfortable as an autonomous resistance movement and one of several partners in government. But if the March 8 coalition wins June 7’s election, it would be best for Lebanon if the coalition does not rule alone and instead joins with the pro-Western March 14 coalition.

Posted by: Lysander | Jun 7 2009 23:22 utc | 4

It looks like Hez got its wish.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 8 2009 0:04 utc | 5

Indeed. The gloating from Saudi and Israel will be hard to bear. But I’m waiting to see what will change. Will there be a national unity government or will March 14 try to reverse last year’s Doha agreement? That’s really all that matters. And While Hizb may not have wanted control of the government, I’m sure they would have preferred a narrower loss.
In any event, Hizb is not about to disarm.

Posted by: Lysander | Jun 8 2009 0:35 utc | 6

http://qifanabki.com/2009/06/08/march-14-declares-victory/#comment-2761
in real life, this background rings true. and judging from the statements of Lebanese politicians everything has been dealt in advance.

Posted by: outsider | Jun 8 2009 3:14 utc | 7

Back to Main