Lebanon has long been accustomed to generating contentious — and at times existential — debates. At any given time, discussions can emerge over a particular issue, starting as a legislative matter but quickly evolving into a national, constitutional, or even structural controversy. The latest example is the proposal to adopt a single electoral district based on proportional representation.
MP Ali Hassan Khalil has forcefully revived the proposal he first introduced six years ago, at the height of debates over electoral laws and amid growing awareness of the flaws in the 2017 legislation. However, the timing of its revival today is far from coincidental. At best, it signals questionable motives — at worst, calculated and potentially malicious intent.
The Shiite community—long dominated by Hezbollah—finds itself facing a deepening crisis following its defeat in the group’s most recent conflict. It grapples with numerous hardships and existential challenges, both politically and economically. Inevitably, it will be forced to surrender its weapons to the Lebanese army and relinquish its military gains as the wave of normalization sweeps across the region.
Recognizing this shifting reality, the Shiite political establishment—distinct from the broader Shiite community, which includes various opposition factions with diverse perspectives—has begun shifting its focus from military strength to political influence to offset the impact of this new crisis.
This is where the flawed electoral law proposal comes into play. It would plunge Lebanon further into the ever-changing complexities of sectarian demographics. Currently, the Shiite community stands as the largest organized voting bloc, capable of forming the biggest unified parliamentary group. Under the existing law, Shiites hold 27 seats, with an additional two or three seats allocated to other religious communities. However, the “single district, proportional representation” proposal would significantly increase their political leverage, potentially securing at least 45 parliamentary seats from various religious communities and regions.
This is the true driving force behind the proposal - similar to the insistence on retaining control of the Ministry of Finance, even if through a figure deemed acceptable to the international community, particularly the United States. Keeping the Finance Ministry under Shiite leadership, along with securing the decisive “third signature” in government decision-making, serves as another avenue for consolidating power under the guise of political tradition. This pattern extends to maintaining control over the General Directorate of General Security, as well as upholding the purported sectarian balance within both Parliament and the Cabinet.
All these moves are calculated steps aimed at expanding political influence, ensuring greater weight in decision-making, and securing dominance over others.
Comments