Is Lebanon a Parliamentary System? - Spoiler alert, it’s really not
Opinion Analysis by Tala Karkanawi Staff Writer, Jonathan Lahdo, Contributor
March 25th, 2021
Lebanon, a country that was referred to as a golden state, and one of the few countries with democratic stability in the Middle East, is faced with economic, political, and social downfall. Lebanon used to be a model of what a stable democracy is in the Middle East, with plenty of different ethnicities and cultures, and a society that pledged to form a correct political representation through a power-sharing confessional structure and charter. It is essential for us to understand that Lebanon is surrounded with troubled countries in a region full of high political and economic tensions and instability.
In order to understand how the parliamentary system works in Lebanon, we have to understand what a parliamentary system is at first. A parliamentary system of a certain government means that the executive branch of the government has the support of the parliament in whatever decision is made. Usually this type of support is shown when a vote of confidence is given. It is important to note that a government in a parliamentary system should have an equal balance between the executive and the legislature.
A parliamentary system in Lebanon consists of a head of a government, and a head of state. A specific term is given for each role to govern and is later changed. The head of the government is usually the prime minister, and the head of state is usually the president of the country, or in multiple other cases, a constitutional monarchy. In addition, a separation of power consists within a parliamentary system to ensure a clear balance between the legislature and the executive.
Lebanon is considered a parliamentary system within its government, with a slight twist to its nature. Ever since the establishment of the Taif Agreement in 1989, the parliament and the parliament is divided in a way where all sect groups are supposedly satisfied. The sectarian distribution is also maintained in public offices.
Lebanon, by a customary and an unwritten law, has the parliament and the government divided between religions and sectarian groups. The president has to be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of the National Assembly a Shia Muslim. The president is elected by ⅔’s of the national assembly, which is led by the head of the national Assembly who is currently Nabih Berri, for a term of 6 years, with an eligibility of serving consecutive terms.
The president, alongside the head of the national assembly, and the deputies of the parliament, allows the prime minister to formulate a cabinet, making sure that the sectarian divide is established within the regulations of the Taif Agreement.
The cabinet holds more power than the president, and in order for it to stay enact, a vote of confidence has to be voted from the national assembly. If a cabinet falls apart, it is because a vote of confidence of a ‘No’ took place, which rarely happens, or pressure from foreign powers, riots, and tensions, which can pressure the prime minister in dissolving the cabinet .
Now that we understand briefly how the parliament and the government takes place in Lebanon, where did we go wrong?
Within the books, the governmental system in Lebanon is following the regulations of a parliamentary system decently, that is if we want to disregard the sectarian division as well. However, this is unfortunately not the case. Lebanon is a failed state, consisting of a failed parliamentary system with no means of decency and responsibility. The country has witnessed an increase in the tensions between the divided people and divergence. In addition, extensive efforts have been occurring supposedly to prevent the system from being tainted by regional commotion and extremist groups. Unfortunately, Lebanon faced multiple political instability, conflicts, and issues relating to national security in the last decade that led to the situation we are in today, which includes, the governance crisis between the years of 2005-2008, postponing national elections plenty of times with the excuse of regional instability, and so much more.
Moreover, the public uprisings that occurred in 2015, and the results of the municipal elections in 2016, when plenty of the citizens voted for independent candidates, instead of the typical candidates who hold the public offices. The citizens have been portraying their discontent with the government for so long now, which shows the leader’s failure in managing and leading the country.
Additionally, a crisis which we deem essential, is the presidential void between the years of 2014 until 2016. In a parliamentary system like Lebanon’s, the constitution allows the parliament, which is the legislature, the sovereignty to elect a president, who is the head of state. Hence, making it the national assembly’s job to elect a head of state for the republic, which is a process the parliament believes protects the balance of power in the country. The president plays the biggest role in the Maronite sect, which is part of the division Lebanon has in safeguarding a balanced sectarian division.
Article 49 of the Lebanese’ constitution sets out the principles and the framework of how an election for the head of state goes. The article sets out the typical candidate for this position, and it is identical to the type of elections that occur in the parliamentary elections. Hence, allowing all citizens who are eligible for parliament, are also eligible for the presidency. However, knowing this is not usual and a typical parliamentary system, the national accord, and customary laws have placed a limitation on the right of being elected as a president, which prevents anyone who does not belong to the Maronite sect from being elected.
Having considered the function of the parliament within the larger framework of the Lebanese state, it is equally important to analyse the people’s participation in order to accurately evaluate the effectiveness of Lebanon’s parliamentary system; the people’s participation comes, of course, in the form of voting in regularly held elections.
As is the case with other countries that have parliamentary systems, Lebanon is divided into a number of electoral districts that each contain a certain number of representatives that is theoretically proportional to the population size of that district. Specifically, Lebanon comprises 15 electoral districts and has 128 members of parliament that serve as representatives for their respective districts. According to the Taif agreement, these 128 members are split equally amongst Christians and Muslims, with further subdivisions by sect between those two groups.
All Lebanese citizens (except for non-retired military personnel, members of the security forces, and convicted felons) aged 21 or older are eligible to vote in parliamentary elections, which are supposed to take place every 4 years. In these elections, candidates run in groups on various lists that people in from their district vote for. Lebanon’s electoral law has changed over the years, and in the most recent elections that took place in 2018, one of the most notable changes was the shift from a majoritarian system to a proportional system - what this meant was that while in previous elections the list that got the majority of votes would win all of the seats in that electoral district, it became possible for the seats to be proportionally allocated amongst lists that met the electoral threshold (also known as the minimum percentage of votes, referring to the number of votes in the district divided by the number of seats.)
Beyond the sectarian nature of the parliament, there are some key issues with Lebanon’s voting processes that call into question the effectiveness of its parliamentary system.
Firstly, there is the issue of the ‘preferential vote.’ While each constituent in a district votes for one list that is made up of several candidates (the number of which must correspond to at least forty percent of the district’s seats), they are also able to select a single candidate within that list to whom they want to give their preferential vote. Once the seat distribution amongst lists meeting the electoral threshold is complete, individual seat allocation is determined by the preferential votes and sectarian distribution within that particular district. Essentially, all the candidates are then ordered by how many preferential votes they received and seats are distributed to them on this basis, with religious quotas being filled first.What this means is that depending on the outcome of the distribution of the preferential votes and the religious make-up of the district, it is entirely possible for winners of the preferential vote on lists that meet the electoral threshold to not make it into parliament while a candidate with one preferential vote potentially could. Although these examples obviously represent the most extreme scenarios, it demonstrates the problematic nature of this system of voting.
Additionally, people vote based on their village/town of origin rather than their place of residence as is the case in most countries. This is an issue for many reasons, not least of which is that a member of parliament is running to serve their constituents’ needs, which obviously does not apply to those that do not live in the constituency. This understandably leads to a disconnect between voters and the candidates they are voting for, and calls into question how people living in a place they are not from can express their opinion on who their representatives are. Furthermore, this system acts as a form of voter suppression, as it requires voters to return to their village/town of origin in order to vote which could potentially be very inconvenient to get to depending on where they actually reside.
Finally, one of the largest issues in Lebanon’s parliamentary voting is the blatant gerrymandering that exists within the division of the country into electoral districts and the allocation of seats to the aforementioned districts. These lines have been drawn and redrawn many times to serve the sectarian interests of the traditional political establishment, who see fit to set the framework and boundaries of the electoral system to best suit their needs and alliances. The effect of the gerrymandering almost becomes such that the existing ruling class continue to sustain their rule essentially by allowing politicians to choose their voters rather than the other way around.
All of these causes have tangible links to the practical effects of corruption and nepotism that plague Lebanon’s political system. From the sectarian nature of parliament and ineffective electoral law to the people, to deliberate efforts to further entrench existing power structures, it is evident that the parliamentary system in Lebanon has been exploited to serve the desires of politicians rather than the needs of the people. With the country facing one of the worst crises it has ever experienced and being ruled by the same self-serving political class, it is clear that serious reform is long overdue.
This article is published as part of the SawtixThe Phoenix Daily Partnership.
To learn more about Sawti click here.