Nasrallah is walking a thin line when it comes to Lebanese elections
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is walking a thin line when it comes to Lebanon”s recent parliamentary elections. The Hizbullah leader”s comments on Monday suggested that his party will go along with the results of the country”s democratic experiment, while at the same time reserving the right to undermine the legitimacy of the entire process.
On the one hand, Nasrallah conceded the opposition”s defeat in Sunday”s polls and even congratulated his rivals on their victory. This magnanimous stance earned him the deserved praise of leaders from across Lebanon”s political spectrum, including MPs Saad Hariri, Walid Jumblatt and Samir Geagea.
But on the other hand Nasrallah uttered one sentence that effectively left the door open for challenging the entire democratic process. The Hizbullah leader drew a distinction between what he called a "parliamentary majority" and a "popular majority," thereby indicating that although the March 14 alliance won the elections, they failed to earn the loyalty of a majority of citizens.
Nasrallah is right on this score: The numbers show that the opposition garnered over 100,000 more votes than March 14 did on election day. But the electoral law gave greater weight to votes in some districts than it did to those in others.
This might make for a useful piece of ammunition in Hizbullah”s arsenal of arguments were it not for one thing: All of the parties, including Hizbullah, agreed to the rules of the game in advance. In fact, the law that was used to govern this year”s parliamentary elections was agreed to during negotiations that took place in Doha after the May 2008 clashes. Hizbullah, having demonstrated its superior military prowess during those street battles, could have tried to force a different electoral arrangement, but the party chose not to. There can be no turning back on that agreement now.
Hizbullah needs to be careful if it wants to raise a fuss over the undemocratic nature of Lebanon”s democracy. Any public effort to undermine the legitimacy of the vote will be perceived as an attack on the Lebanese state and its institutions. This doesn”t mean that the party should refrain from an effort to reform Lebanon”s dysfunctional democracy. The Lebanese would welcome an attempt by any leader who had the courage to promote a political system that regards Lebanese as citizens, not as members of a hierarchy of sects and tribes.
But the venue for those discussions should be the Parliament, not public speeches, talk shows and media outlets. Creating a stronger state requires building on the one we have now, not tearing it down completely.