No Obama effect in Lebanon

By Eurasia Group analyst Hani Sabra and Willis Sparks  

Political blogs have been buzzing for the past several days with spots and posts about an "Obama effect" on last weekend’s parliamentary elections in Lebanon — elections that the anti-U.S. opposition was largely expected to win, but didn’t. Here’s the theory: Now that Barack Obama has replaced the much despised George W. Bush, the people of the Middle East — at least those with an opportunity to vote — won’t support "extremists" simply to spite America. The elections in Lebanon reveal the Obama effect in action: the ruling "moderate" March 14 coalition bucked the polls, fended off Hizbullah’s challenge, and won the election.

That’s a great story, and one that complements last week’s Obama speech to the "Muslim world." But there is no evidence of any such effect in Lebanon’s elections and plenty of evidence that America’s new president had little impact on the outcome. (In fact, it would be easier to argue that Vice President Joe Biden’s recent visit to Beirut undermined the March 14 coalition by allowing the opposition to accuse the United States of last-minute meddling in Lebanon’s vote.)

First, March 14 fended off a challenge from the entire opposition, not simply from Hizbullah. Despite the media love affair over the past few weeks with the possibility of a Hizbullah victory, the group is merely one very influential part of the opposition. More important for the opposition’s chances was powerful Lebanese Christian General Michel Aoun (and a few other factions.) The race essentially came down to control of Lebanon’s Christian heartland. It was not a fight for the southern or eastern districts, which Hizbullah (and Amal, the other Shia party) swept easily. In other words, Hizbullah did its part. It was Aoun that sank the opposition’s chances.

Second, it’s a stretch to refer to all factions of the March 14 coalition as "moderates." The United States and Europe support March 14, but so does Saudi Arabia, hardly a beacon of either democracy or moderation. Some Lebanese (especially Palestinians) would never describe the Phalange or Lebanese Forces (key Christian March 14 parties) as moderates. 

Third, the election results were somewhat surprising, but they were hardly shocking. March 14 won the seats everyone knew they would win. Hizbullah and Amal did the same. The list headed by Sulieman Frangieh, a Christian political boss in Syria’s pocket, swept its district. Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement carried several Christian areas where he was a lock. That left a few hotly contested (largely Christian) districts. That’s where Aoun needed to push the opposition past the finish line — and where the elections were lost.

Finally, there are theories, with varying degrees of credibility, about how March 14 pulled it off. There was the eleventh-hour appeal from the Maronite Patriarch calling on Christians to reject the opposition. There are the latent Christian fears of Syrian domination. There is Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s habit of making intemperate public statements. But there is no evidence that large numbers of any of Lebanon’s various factions drew inspiration from President Obama’s speech last week in Cairo and cast a vote with America in mind.

March 14 candidates did not campaign on a pro-U.S. platform. Nor did its gains come from areas dominated by Hizbullah. These elections were decided by Christians, and some of them still voted for the opposition.

In other words, last weekend’s elections in Lebanon were not a referendum on the tone and credibility of U.S. outreach to the Middle East. Instead, they illustrate the principle that all politics is … well, you get the idea.

(The excellent Lebanese blog qifa nabki is a good source for news on Lebanon.)