By Nizar Bou Karroum | Staff Writer

In the past few days, Lebanese social networking sites have been buzzing with clips of electoral candidate Michel Elias, grandson of the former minister and deputy, and one of the major symbols of the post-war Lebanese regime, Michel El-Murr. The candidate’s statements drew ridicule, as they were devoid of any serious proposals. They also emphasized the ideas of patronage, clientelism, and protectionism that traditional parties have long used to influence their electoral base. “In the absence of the state, we will continue, as a political house, to stand by the people.” This sentence summed up El-Murr’s electoral program that was clearly based on capitalizing on the state’s failure to promote the traditional Lebanese clientelist practices rather than promising to fulfill legislative duties and build a state that “stands by the people.” 

The current political establishment is trying, as it has done over the years, to mislead people into believing that the political conflict in Lebanon is limited to disagreements on broad and complex issues such as resistance, freedom or sovereignty. However, the discourse that focuses on how to resolve the crisis, distribute losses and implement social security programs has been neglected. This discourse that has been absent for years has regained its momentum once again thanks to some parties and groups that have developed clear plans to target Lebanese grievances. In theory, if the typical Lebanese voter relied on electoral programs to choose his or her candidate, the choice would have been easy. Yet the matter becomes more complicated in the Lebanese society, where the traditional ruling parties have mastered the manipulation of sectarian, regional and political divisions for mass mobilization, due to various historical and social considerations.

Despite the disastrous social and economic consequences of their rule, traditional power-sharing parties remain popular. Some of their supporters still believe in the adopted political discourse, while others invoke the absence of convincing alternatives. Ironically, this category is still struggling to find alternatives for those who stole their money, squandered the wealth of their country, deprived them of health care and education, forced them to stand in queues to get a loaf of bread or a fuel tank, and caused the death or immigration of their loved ones. In short, by causing one the most severe economic crises in world history, the ruling establishment raised the bar so dramatically that it became inconceivable that any alternative, of whatever affiliation, could be any worse.

Many voters prefer to use blank ballot papers as a way to express their dissatisfaction. It should be clarified that the establishment has designed the election law to suit their interests. While blank ballot papers were not considered in previous electoral laws, the current law counts them in the final calculation of total votes. According to the 2017 Electoral Law, a voter must vote for one complete list, and not a single member of the list can win a seat if his/her list does not obtain the “electoral quotient” which is calculated by dividing the total number of voters (participants in the elections) by the number of seats specified for the respective constituency. Thus, inserting a blank ballot paper, will increase the total number of voters and therefore the electoral quotient, making it more difficult for opposition lists to acquire this quotient and have the opportunity to secure parliamentary seats. On the other hand, the ruling political parties, having forged strong alliances with their counterparts, adopt well-organized processes for channeling and distributing votes across the various constituencies. Furthermore, the division of electoral districts according to the electoral law enables each of these parties to win the majority of the parliamentary seats allotted to their strongholds. 

Thus, the proper way of protesting the ruling class, is achieved neither by boycotting the elections nor by going for blank votes, but through directing our votes to the candidates that are most representative of our visions and aspirations.