June 9th, 2009 by Blake

Pundits are surprised by March 14’s unexpectedly decisive win in Lebanon’s elections on Sunday, and the blogosphere is awash in analysis. Max Bergmann at Democracy Arsenal suggests that Obama’s outreach to the Middle East since January may well have influenced the outcome of Lebanon’s elections. Meanwhile, Ray Hanania at the Huffington Post notes that the election may not have resulted in substantive change to the Lebanese government’s composition, but it is a major symbolic victory for Obama. In this light, Chris Good at the Atlantic commentary suggests that Obama’s speech on the eve of the Lebanese and Iranian elections could cause electoral results that call for a referendum on relations with the West.

Despite the speech’s symbolic victory, Simon Tisdall at the Guardian questions how much effect the Cairo speech delivered in Lebanon, yet he welcomes Lebanese receptivity of Vice President Biden and Secretary Clinton’s visits, seeing the March 14 victory as the first signs of a positive ‘Obama effect’ in the Middle East. Robert Satloff emphasizes the importance of Biden’s visit at the Middle East Strategy at Harvard blog, but critics disagree that Biden added any momentum to March 14. In fact, Rex Brynen argues that the opposition seemed to use the visit as fodder to protest American “intervention.” Importantly, though, he credits a broader American policy in regional relations, particularly with Syria, that reveal U.S. support for a sovereign Lebanon.

Domestic politics rooted in last year’s burst of violence trumped any external influences in the elections, argues Andrew Exum, also on the MESH blog. Similarly, Omri Nir was quoted in the Jerusalem Post stating that the dynamics among Lebanon’s Christian communities, not Obama, impacted the election results.  Qifa Nabki cites high expatriate Sunni turnout, antipathy toward Hezbollah and controversy about Nasrallah’s recent “rhetorical blunders” as primary factors that led March 14 to Parliament.

The next steps for Lebanon will focus on the composition of the new government and the country’s domestic and regional agenda. Al-Arabiya reported on Nasrallah’s graceful response to defeat in a speech yesterday, but he claimed that questions about Hezbollah’s arms would not be up for discussion in Parliament. Mohamad Bazzi at the Council on Foreign Relations says that the new government faces how to deal with Hezbollah’s one third right veto power. This ability for Hezbollah to paralyze government signals that Hezbollah will remain an influential–and possibly divisive–actor in Lebanese politics. Perhaps this is why the Financial Times argues that even a national unity government will be perennially deadlocked.

Check out POMED’s recently-updated Lebanon country page for more information and updates.

Posted in Elections, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Political Parties, US foreign policy |