Haggling Over The Election Law

Basing the electoral law on temporary alliances is ill advised and unsustainable.

There are rumors that the Lebanese parties in Doha are trying to carve a self-serving electoral law. It is being said for instance that Mr. Aoun is proposing Beirut divisions that allow the Shiaas to vote for the Christians and that Mr. Hariri would love to keep (Christian) Zgharta in the embrace of (Sunni) Tripoli.

That short-sightedness would be a big mistake, as it would be an admission that the Lebanese will never be able to manage things on their own. Every time new alliances emerge between the dominant players, a new Doha will have to be found to carve up a matching electoral law.

The arguments made in Doha should not be about politics. A fairer electoral division, even if it costs March 14 some seats, should not be portrayed as an attempt by the opposition to “harvest their military gains politically”, as Mr. Jumblatt is fond of saying. Mr Ghassan Tueni who embraced the draft law of the Lebanese commission for electoral reform should not feel pressured to follow March 14’s lead and should try to persuade them of the law’s long-term merits.

The electoral law they should be coming up with is one that can last at least another 50 years (where demographic changes could dictate some necessary tinkering and gerrymandering), a law that has enough moral clarity and weight to impose on politicians their electoral platforms. Anything else would be tantamount to treating cancer with an aspirin.