Well then a situation where there is one candidate in elections like in Syria etc they are equally “representative” system. Somebody representing your faith/tribe doesn’t necessarily make Lebanon a real democracy.

Surely I would not call my country Finland a real representative democracy if there would be quotas in parliament for each religious group based on a very outdated data and I would given several other votes besides my own “group’s” vote depending from the size of my voting region. I would call it a strange form of democracy.

Imagine USA with a same kind of “representative” parliamentary system as Lebanon has. The Congress would have religious quotas and you could give tens of votes to different Christian fragment, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu etc candidates. That system would certainly be a formula to an “interesting political environment”.

Surely I understand the circumstances in which the Lebanese system had been created. To me a big surprise was this multi vote system. But in the end the relevant question is does the present system create more problems than it solves. Maybe a more plain, normal representative democracy could be better for Lebanon and Middle East.

What you’re saying is basically correct. But you cannot say it is not democratic. It is in a sense similar to the Electoral College system in the US.

In the case of Lebanon, it is as you said not very straightforward to come up with an accurate assessment of the popular vote. I saw on March 14 website two days ago official popular and seat results displayed on its first page showing 56% popular vote for M14 and 44% for M8. The page has since been updated.

However, it is not clear on what basis these new so-called studies are conducted. How could one determine the popular vote from such system of voting? The voting system does not lend itself to a simple count of ballots to give you an indication. One thing I can say for sure is that the political parties involved have an interest at this point in justifying their shortcomings. So they will use any argument for that purpose. Nevertheless, it was the opposition which insisted on the use of this electoral law, which goes back to 1960, in the division of districts.

We know for a fact that a Christian MP needs about 19000 votes to be elected based on the number of Christian MP’s and the number of Christian voters. The Msulim MP on the other hand needs 31000 Muslim votes to be elected. This is due to the fact that the Parliament is divided equally between the Christians (including all denominations) and the Muslims (Sunni, Shi’ite, and Druze). This is what was agreed upon in Taif as a way to end the civil war. In this agreement, the Christians recognized the fact of changing demographics. So they accepted the 50/50 representation as opposed to the 5/6 representation that was in their favor before Taif.

You may argue and say that the Christians are over represented in the Parliament. That is true. However, you still have to go back in history to understand its justification. In a nutshell, the Christians of Lebanon have to be made to feel secure in an environment that is becoming less and less in their favor due to changing demographics. If you go back to 1943 when Lebanon gained independence you may get some perspective. At that time the Christians looked at France, the colonial power with a League of Nations mandate over Lebanon, as their protector in a mostly Muslim region. A deal of power sharing formula was struck (an unwritten code still in force) that united the Muslims and Christians in seeking independence from France. The Taif agreement modified the parliamentary representation quota of the Muslims and Christians to par as a guarantee that the Christians will be equally represented in Lebanon (which they consider as the only Christian homeland in the Middle East) while giving in to Muslim demands.

Short of abolishing the confessional system altogether I can not see how we can divide 4 apples among 5 persons and still give each person a whole apple. We have limited resources and the population is changing.

SHurtta: Its called representative democracy, most of Europe subscribes to it as well. What makes Lebanon extra-special in this case is the religious parameters I guess, but except for that its basically how much of the west does it.

Basically I would understand better that a registered voter could vote the candidates on the lists of his/hers own sect than that they can vote all sects lists in their district. Well for us Europeans, who are used to a less complex democracy than Lebanon has, it is difficult to understand this system.

Every election that this is not achieved makes these crude tactics more plausible. It is of course problematic that Hizbollah have already committed themselves to crude tactics without genuinely attempting the pacific route. Any ideas about how this can happen, because the Dirty Dozen haven’t got a clue?

You have to know more about Lebanon voters. I’m not challenging your mental abilities, but Lebanon is completely different than the US when it come to elections. The game in Lebanon is to control the largest block of MP’s. Currently you need at least 64 seats to control parliament. The more you get of course the better.

First in any one district, the voter would cast ONE ballot with the names of all his candidates listed on the ballot. He can also make his own ballot with his choice of running candidates or he can be ridiculous and put any names which will, of course, void his ballot. In other words he can choose to vote for candidates, for example, from M14 or M8 on the same list. He has to form his list, however, in accordance with the sectarian composition of the seats allowed for that district.

Your scenario for choosing the least capable candidate from the opposing camp has no political value in this game of controlling parliament. In fact, in most cases voters are not voting for the most capable. What usually happens is that a district which has one or two seats allotted to a sect that is allied with one of the major groups but its constituent sect within that district is a minority, the representatives for that sect are dictated by the major group which has the major constituency. Let’s take an example the Baalbek-Hermel district. It is a Shi’ite dominated district loyal to Hezb. There are two Sunni seats in that district and there is one Christian seat. In this district, the Sunnis and the Christians have no choice but to have their representatives to be dictated by Hezbollah. So they are elected in that district by mostly Hezb voters and when they go to parliament, they are within M8 camp. They have no other choice, otherwise next time they will be trashed. There are quite few districts with similar situation. The end result of this cross sectarian MP’s within each camp balances out more or less. I am not excluding here the possibility that some Sunnis are by conviction loyal to M8; or vice versa you may also find some Shi’te who are loyal to M14.

It is a bit difficult to believe to your explanation that every registered voter can vote for one person for each seat. What if the majority of voters (for example Shias) in a district decide to vote the most stupid and unpopular candidate in the other groups lists. Surely the majority could “control” the outcome also in this case. It is very difficult to believe that such system could work. Why on earth would for example the Shia voters vote for a rather “hostile” leader on the other sects list, of course they would choose the lists “clown” to weaken the other side.

Just to tell you how much `Awn has lost support among Christians: in the 2005 election, the difference between any of his candidates and the losers was more than 10,000 votes. In this election, the difference between Gen. `Awn himself and the losing candidate Mansur Al-Bawn was a mere 1500 votes. That tells you something. What I found more stunning is Zghorta. Somebody told me that Sulayman Franjiyyah looked very subdued in victory. The reason is in the numbers. In the last election (which was on the basis of larger districts where Franjiyyah lost because Sunni voters determined the outcome of elections in the North), an analysis of the Zghorto district shows that Franjiyyah received three times more votes than those who lost, like Nayla Mu`awwad, who obtained something like 20% of votes in the district itself (and yet she won with Sunni votes in the larger district). In this election, the difference between Sulayman Franjiyyah and the first losing candidate, Mishel Mu`awwad, was a mere 3000 votes. This is very big for Zghorta. Real big. So `Awn and Franjiyyah will now have to adjust and that will make them less antagonistic toward their Sunni rivals.

The guy who got the largest number of votes is:
Emile Rahmeh – 109,060
So, Tadamon party is the most popular party – kid you not (as you say)”.
PS Emile Rahmah was a Lebanese Forces man during the civil war. In the 1990s, he changed and became aligned with the Syrian regime and its allies in Lebanon. He founded his own party (Solidarity Party, which has two other members) and was put on Hizbullah list in Ba`albak.