As election season heats up in the Lebanese capital, the man to fill Lebanon’s Presidential throne is still very much up in the air. No time like the present, less than fifty days from the May 25 deadline, illustrates just how dependant the internal forces are on their external sponsors.
Ironically enough, of the seemingly endless list of candidates being discussed as potential Presidents, only Samir Geagea, a senior figure in the March 14 Alliance, has officially declared his candidacy. The Lebanese Forces leader seems tipped to emerge with enough votes to assume the position.
Other prominent names being put forward include Michel Aoun, Sleiman Franjieh, Amin Gemayel, Jean Kahwaji, Jean Obeid, Boutros Harb and Riad Salameh. A basic who’s who of just about anyone with enough guile and clout to be eligible for a post reserved for Maronites, but not a true reflection of the preferred candidate behind closed doors.
The bipartisan nature of the Lebanese political scene, polarised between the March 8 and March 14 fronts, makes ascension difficult. Candidates must first be deemed suitable by their own parties before braving a veto from either Hezbollah or the Future Movement. This rules out candidates that are too far aligned to one side to be considered fit by the other. A successful president will need to be approved by both Hezbollah and the Future Movement, or at least not arouse their mistrust.
Superficially, this delicate balance that must be achieved effectively rules out politicians vilified by either side, those who are unable to garner any votes from opposition blocs. However, one must entertain the construct that the candidate most likely to emerge victorious is the one external actors throw their weight behind. With Saudi Arabia, Iran, and even Syria, in an albeit reduced capacity, able to exact influence on the selection process all bets are off. This entertains the thinking that Lebanon is not in fact an actor, but a stage upon which regional powers act.
As Lebanon’s representatives of the public play their political prowess, their constituents continue to demand modification of their respective salary scales. The public servants have organized themselves time and again to insure reasonable change is enacted. While most MPs agree on the overarching purpose of the demonstrations, productive debate has been stalled by disagreement over the statistics behind the imposed costs of the legislation.
The issue of salary scales has been a part of every parliamentary agenda for the past two years, with increased movements and strikes causing the concern to flare in priority. In spite of the exorbitant cost stalling would entail, it seems like any solution that finally passes will be so ridden with loopholes and vague terms that the next parliament will have no choice but to go back to the drawing board.
About the Author
