Lebanon has never held parliamentary elections without first revisiting its electoral law. The country stands out for its persistent search for voting systems that cater to the shifting political landscape and the interests of dominant parliamentary parties.
While the Taif Agreement established governorates as electoral districts, the 1992 elections failed to uphold fair standards. Some adjustments were made in 1996, but the infamous Ghazi Kanaan Law of 2000 severely curtailed Christian electoral influence, limiting their ability to elect more than 15 of their representatives.
In 2005, electoral reform became a focal point of debate following the Syrian withdrawal. However, the insistence of holding elections as scheduled left no room for legislative changes. It was only after the Doha Agreement that amendments were introduced, reinstating a modified version of the 1960 electoral law in Beirut.
In 2013, elections were suspended amid efforts to draft a new electoral law, culminating in the 2017 agreement that introduced proportional representation—despite various competing proposals, including those put forward by the Fouad Boutros Committee and the so-called Orthodox Law.
Today, the electoral law is back in the spotlight after Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri convened joint parliamentary committees to discuss both the electoral reform and the proposed creation of a “Senate.” Meanwhile, MP Ali Hassan Khalil has put forward two proposals advocating for Lebanon to be designated as a single electoral district.
The proposal to establish Lebanon as a single electoral district faces immediate and insurmountable opposition from Christians, Druze and Sunnis. However, its real intent is to rekindle debate over the electoral law. Under the current system, the Shiite bloc—the largest in Parliament—already sees itself as a guaranteed victory, solidifying its 27-seat stronghold. A single-district framework would only reinforce this dominance, effectively paving the way for an implicit tripartite power-sharing arrangement driven by demographic shifts.
While multiple electoral law proposals are on the table, the fundamental question remains: What should Parliament’s role be, and what is the true function of an MP?
If the role of an MP is primarily service-oriented—centering on local community ties and patronage—a single-member district system is the ideal choice. If the goal is to ensure sectarian representation, the Orthodox Law stands out as the most viable option. However, if the primary objective is legislative effectiveness, then policy-driven electoral programs within medium-sized districts provide the most accurate and equitable representation.
However, the core issue is that MPs have yet to agree on the true role of a parliamentarian. Some see it as a service-oriented position—prioritizing clientelist services, including securing detainees’ release, turning a blind eye to smuggling and managing local grievances—while others view it as a platform for maintaining political balance.
The country is poised to navigate a flood of proposals aimed at addressing the flaws of the current electoral law, widely deemed unfair in many respects. At this crossroads, unity in presenting alternative visions and proposals is crucial—yet, it remains out of reach, especially in contrast to the Shiite Amal-Hezbollah alliance, which represents a cohesive push for a single-district system. The pressing question now is whether this revived debate on electoral law serves as a genuine reform effort or merely a pretext to extend Parliament’s term.
Comments