Lebanese resistance wins majority but loses election
While the United States,
Britain and other imperialist powers have strained every nerve to brand the
free and fair presidential election in Iran as rigged and fraudulent, and to
use all manner of extra-legal means to overturn the result, they have hailed as
a great victory the 7 June election in Lebanon, which, despite the fact that
the anti-imperialist coalition led by Hizbollah gained a clear majority of
votes, returned a pro-imperialist parliamentary majority.
As the Economist explained: “Although
some 54% of voters backed the opposition, they did so in places where more
votes produced fewer MPs. Those who voted against the resistance tended to vote
in districts with proportionally more weight….
“March 14th’s [the name for the
pro-imperialist coalition] capture of 71 out of 128 parliamentary seats also
underlined the flaws in Lebanon’s cumbersome democracy, which reserves seats
for each of 16 recognised religious sects according to long-outdated census
weightings, under a formula that splits parliament equally between Christians
and Muslims. Taking advantage of the imbalance between the size of the
constituencies and the number of their MPs, the alliance gained a critical
advantage from the massive turnout by Sunni voters in Christian districts,
reflecting both demographic shifts and the financial clout of the Sunni
political machine. The opposition’s losses were mostly suffered by independent
politicians allied to them. Hizbollah, which in the past has shied away from a
deep exposure to what it calls ‘dirty’ electoral politics, ran only 11
candidates, all of whom won handily” (‘Lebanon’s election. A win for the
West’, 11 June 2009).
This parliamentary system, representing a deeply
flawed democracy, is based on the Taif Accords, hammered out by Saudi Arabia and Syria to end the Lebanese civil war some 20 years ago. According to these accords,
parliamentary seats are apportioned as follows: 27 seats (Sunnis), 27 seats
(Shias), 34 seats (Maronite Christians), and the remainder divided between
Druze, Greek Orthodox, Alawites and others.
Further, the prime minister must be a Sunni, the
president a Maronite, and the parliamentary speaker a Shia.
Despite the fact that the bloc winning a clear
majority of the votes was cheated of victory by this sectarian arrangement, the
Financial Times correspondent Roula Khalaf brazenly reported:
“By winning 71 seats in parliament against 57
for the opposition, under a new electoral law approved by Hizbollah and its
allies, the Sunni-led March 14 coalition proved that it commanded a genuine
majority” (‘Voters dash Shia group’s hopes of greater legitimacy’, 9 June).
With a win for the patriotic resistance and its
allies having been widely predicted, the United States could scarcely believe
its luck.
Yet the election result was secured not least with
some heavy-handed and blatant interference in Lebanon’s internal affairs.
Turning up in the Lebanese capital, Beirut, just days before polling, Vice President Joe Biden declared that the United States would “evaluate the shape of our assistance programmes based on the
composition of the new government and the policies it advocates.”
More junior officials were even less subtle.
Writing in Asia Times Online, Syrian journalist Sami Moubayed reported:
“In a joint interview with the London-based al-Hayat
on Saturday, US Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Jeffery
Feltman said: ‘The election’s outcome will naturally affect the world’s stance
towards the new Lebanese government and the manner in which the United States and Congress deal with Lebanon.’
“He added: “I believe the Lebanese are
smart enough to understand that there will be an effect. When Hizbollah claims
that there won’t be any effect, when it claims that it is not interested in the
matter, I tend to believe that the Lebanese with their intelligence would think
otherwise.’
“He then criticised [Michel] Aoun [the
main Christian leader allied to Hizbollah], who has been saying that the
Christians of Lebanon should not rely on the United States, saying: ‘One of
your politicians is proposing that Christians shouldn’t depend on the United States. I hope the Lebanese had accurately listened to the president’s [Barack
Obama] speech that specifically pointed to the widest Christian religious
minority in Lebanon, the Maronites. The president spoke about the need for
respecting all peoples in the region including minorities … I hope the
Lebanese would ask themselves: Do we want to be on the side of the
international community and close to the stances that President Obama made? I
hope they would say yes.’”
However, despite imperialist politicians and media
crowing about a supposed “devastating defeat” for Hizbollah, the party will
almost certainly be offered representation in the new government and will
certainly continue to occupy a key place in national life. According to a power
sharing agreement reached in the Qatari capital Doha on 21 May 2008, Hizbollah
is entitled to a “blocking third” veto power in the cabinet.
In welcoming the election result, Barack Obama
said: “The United States will continue to support a sovereign and
independent Lebanon, committed to peace and the full implementation of all
United Nations Security Council resolutions.”
This was a clear reference to UNSC Resolution 1701,
which calls for disarming all armed groups in Lebanon outside the control of
central government, which is generally interpreted to refer to Hizbollah alone.
However, the Financial Times quoted an official of the March 14
coalition as stating:
“No one has the intention of going after
Hizbollah’s weapons because it would mean civil war” (op.cit.).
For its part, in stark contrast to the poor losers
in Tehran, Hizbollah promptly stated that it would accept the election result,
despite its manifest unfairness. The Xinhua news agency quoted Hizbollah
leader Hassan Nasrullah as saying, “his party accepts the elections
results, but will follow up election violations in a legal way and will not
resort to street protests…
“‘The elections took place under US, Western and
Arab pressure and intimidation to impose their options on the results and on
the will of Lebanese people’, Nasrullah said, referring to the huge amount of
money used to buy votes.
“He stressed that the ruling majority adopted an
election campaign ‘built on lies and rumours, while the opposition abided by
the moral rules of truth and commitment’…
“Nasrullah addressed the pro-government ruling
majority leaders who made remarks against the elections in Iran, saying: ‘I
advise (them) not to interfere in Iranian elections because this is an
issue that you do not understand’” (‘Hizbollah chief vows to maintain calm
following elections defeat’, 18 June).
No wonder Washington and London consider Nasrullah to be a terrorist!