Lebanon recently finished the last round of its municipal elections, and the message was not reassuring. Lists backed by the country’s sectarian political parties were largely victorious. This anticipates a period of continued polarisation at a time when Lebanon needs to be unified around a project to benefit from the changing dynamics in the Middle East.
Writing in the US-based International Policy Digest, Mohammad Fheili, executive in residence at the American University of Beirut, expressed a more general mood in Lebanon about where the country was going. Commenting on US President Donald Trump’s recent tour of the Middle East, Mr Fheili noted that “Lebanon [was] conspicuously absent from the conversation. Lebanon wasn’t simply left off the agenda. It seems to have vanished from it altogether”.
The mood among leading parties inside Lebanon seems blithely detached from the broader shifts in the region. The main Christian political party, the Lebanese Forces, took pride in its victories in the towns of Jounieh and Zahleh, while doing well in other Christian bastions. For the party’s leader, Samir Geagea, this bodes well for parliamentary elections next year, when the Lebanese Forces hope to form an even larger bloc than the one they have today.
Of particular urgency for Mr Geagea is not only to marginalise the Free Patriotic Movement led by Gebran Bassil, but also to push back against any potential electoral challenge by candidates supported by President Joseph Aoun, whom Mr Geagea quietly regards as a rival.
Candidates backed by Hezbollah and the allied Amal Movement did well in the south and in the Baalbek-Hermel regions, but that was expected. Following the recent military defeat of Hezbollah by Israel, it was not likely that voters would oppose the party, displaying divisions that would only compound the Shiite community’s setbacks because of the war.
Similarly, in other areas, candidates backed by the political class did well. This was less visible in the Sunni community, given that Saad Hariri, once the dominant communal representative, failed to engage with the elections. However, renewed Saudi interest in Lebanon, albeit limited, and the downfall of the Assad government in Syria have helped revive a community that had often felt sidelined during the years of Hezbollah’s hegemony.
Yet if the elections were largely interpreted in domestic political terms by the sectarian political parties, Mr Fheili’s doubts were reaffirmed when it comes to the region. A fragmented country, led by self-interested political parties focused on short-term gains to secure communal ascendancy, is hardly one optimally prepared for regional transformations.
There may be exceptions to this. As my colleague Maha Yahya of Carnegie has noted, Mr Trump’s decision to lift sanctions on Syria may have positive repercussions on Lebanon’s banking lobby, which has systematically blocked financial reforms, fearing that banks may be forced to bear the greatest burden of losses from the financial collapse of 2019-2020.
Today, if reconstruction resumes in Syria, Lebanon’s banking sector anticipates playing a major role in the process. However, this can happen only if it agrees to a restructuring, allowing banks to refloat themselves. Until now, there has been resistance in the sector, both because there has been no agreement over who – banks, the state, or the central bank – would cover the largest share of losses and because restructuring may eliminate several banks.
The reality is that many nations appear to have lost patience with Lebanon, which over the years has thwarted numerous efforts to reform its economy. The country is a graveyard for new approaches, as it remains under the thumb of political, financial and commercial cartels that unfailingly shoot down most ideas aiming to break a debilitating stalemate.
Yet the message in Mr Trump’s visit to the region was fairly evident. He seeks a world in which economic relations and self-interest prevail, but also, it seems, one in which China, Russia and the US have their spheres of influence. If that’s his vision, the Middle East will remain an area of competition between the US and China, which implies that the countries of the region have much to gain by positioning themselves between rival superpowers.
Yet Lebanon, once the quintessential middle-man country, is devoid of ideas, and is struggling with a geopolitical situation that is catastrophic. Israel’s regional strategy has shifted to one of enhancing its security by fragmenting its Arab neighbours, and acting, or planning to act, with impunity inside their territories. This could be fatal for Lebanon.
In light of this, Lebanon must press forward in its dialogue with Hezbollah to secure the group’s disarmament. Only then will it be able to free the south of Israel’s occupation and normalise the situation enough to think strategically about its regional place. This would reassure outside countries that it is progressing enough for them to provide vital foreign investment.
But even that may not be enough if Lebanon doesn’t overcome its incapacitating sectarian factionalism. Unless this happens and the Lebanese come together to shape a common vision for the future, the country will remain an afterthought – a place bleeding its youth to the advantage of more vibrant societies. Like a dried flower, it will be both beautiful and dead.
