If you’re trying to test the validity of their argument in abstract terms, you will obviously find it unfounded. This is actually expected. This is not due to the fact that our political actors are psychologically handicapped or our system irrational, like many of our dogmatic pundits will have us believe. The problem is in the approach: it removes the argument from its rhetorical context and the political game, and by doing this misrepresents it and misreads it.

You can actually extend this approach (the search for inner validity) to all elements in our political system that feature a “prominent” communal trait, and I’m sure you’ll get the same result. And this is due to the methodological problems that I have mentioned, and also a couple of epistemological ones: Communalism surely is a prominent feature (like a nose in the middle of the face), but it’s not the “engine”, the “dynamic principle” of our political system.

The reason for the focus on the COMMUNAL balance is because this is what the politicians are interested in. Everything else you mention (patronage networks, voter registration, etc.) are hugely important issues. But the point of this post was to directly address the rhetoric about “balancing” the under-21′s with the expats, which, as we’ve seen, is a very silly argument.

- Why reduce the debate surrounding expat voting to the issue of communal balance?
Why not take into consideration other elements such as the interests of the patronage networks (reinforcement, internationalisation, cost reduction…) and other effects, such as the dilution of local issues or the introduction of voter registration (a feature that doesn’t exist in our current electoral system… but that would be managed by Foreign Affairs)…

If you don’t have a Lebanese ID, you can’t vote.

The definition of an “expat”, as far as the electoral reform issue is concerned, is a person who is a Lebanese citizen (with a Lebanese ID or passport) who is living overseas.

If both of your parents are Lebanese but you were born in Canada and got Canadian citizenship ONLY, then you can’t vote. This assumes that your parents never bothered to register you at the Lebanese embassy and process your paperwork so that you could get Lebanese citizenship as well.

If, on the other hand, your parents went to the embassy and registered your birth so that it went onto your father’s ikhraj qayd, then you are eligible to get your Lebanese ID or passport, and then you CAN vote.

So what Ghassan is saying makes sense. The enormous numbers of people of Lebanese descent in the diaspora include many who don’t actually have Lebanese citizenship, and so are not entitled to vote.

I also dont think the 3.3 million covers all the expats for one reason: a lot of them dont have Lebanese IDs, even some of those that go back and forth on a yearly basis, why? Because the Lebanese ID is useless to a citizen of another country when he cant even use it to vote.

A question I have when it comes to “Expat votes” is what exactly is the definition of an Expat? Is it someone who was born in Lebanon and hence was registered with the Mokhtar? Or someone that neednt be born in Lebanon but got his Ikhraj Qayd done at a later stage? I dont see how Electionguerilla’s “First” argument holds true? What if my parents both hold Lebanese IDs and are hence in the Register of Voters, but I dont carry one since I was born in Timbuktu and carry its passport? Am I not allowed to register myself and vote? I think a higher priority than allowing the Expatriates to vote is to reform and clarify our nationality laws.

Gobbeltygook,

I dont see why its so important for us to follow the French or American expat voting system?

In both cases, it’s not a question of constitutional or legal rights, but the mechanisms to allow their implementation ie: voting at embassies, etc…

HOWEVER, when comparing to other countries, another issue arises. In France, for instance, where voting is based on residence (rather than “area of origin”), expats can only vote in Presidential elections (direct suffrage) and Senatorial elections on seats specifically earmarked for expats (rather than regions of France). In the US, expats are allowed to vote for any federal level office through the states they were last registered in before leaving the country.

So if Lebanon were to follow France’s example, expats would not vote for anything, since all elections (parliamentay and municipal) are based on districts. If Lebanon were to follow the US example, elections would have to be based on state (mohafaza) district. So in either case, expat voting SHOULD mean a complete overhaul of the system.

My starting point is the estimate that the Lebanese population is around 4.2 million people. A rather quick analysis of the Lebanese population pyramid reveals that about 1.7 million people are under the age of 21, which means that the voter registration rolls of everyone in Lebanon would be around 2.5 million.
But this is where it becomes interesting; the Ministry of the interior has on its voter rolls 3.3 million voters. If one is to subtract the 2,5 from the 3,3 then we get a rough estimate of 800,000 registered Lebanese citizens who are living abroad.
( The 1.7 figure is probably accurate because one can assume that very few of the under 21 represent expats and since the governments own figures claim that lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 adds 280,000 votes. It is safe to assume that each of the lower 3 years age band represents a little bit more than 280,000 since Lebanons population structure resembles a pyramid.)
What does all of the above mean? If the figures are reasonably accurate then all the potential expat vote is 800,000 and I do not see how more than 10% would be in a position to make the required trek to the embassy/consulate. This implies that the total expat vote under the current conditions will not be more than 80,000 spread all across the country. This seems to support the idea that unless election winning margins are very narrow the marginal votes from expats will probably not change the current results under the current system by much.
Could it be that there are more expat Christians and so in the aggregate the Christian leaders will be able to argue in favour of maintaining their present exceptional treatment for one more day/month/year?

((Please keep in mind that all the above is my own personal estimate).