|
Resistance holds its own as tensions grow
By John Catalinotto
Workers World
U.S. imperialism and its Middle East client states carried out heavy-handed interventions in the June 7 Lebanese elections and Hezbollah’s electoral ally in the Christian community
there suffered some setbacks. However, the resistance forces were able to maintain the strength they have shown since 2006, when they repelled Israeli military forces that had carried out a murderous and destructive invasion
and bombing campaign against Lebanon.
The election underlined the serious internal political tension that has been ongoing since 2006, which can be characterized as one of dual power. Since the war, Lebanon has been
divided in a perilous balance of forces. The government’s forces are lined up with Western imperialism. The Hezbollah-led resistance, with a popular-based guerrilla force, has the support of the masses throughout the region.
U.S.-Israeli threats
U.S. strategists know how important Hezbollah’s example is to the region. Vice President Joseph Biden visited Lebanon two weeks before the vote and threatened to cut aid to that country if the
Hezbollah-led opposition made significant gains in parliamentary voting. “We will evaluate the shape of our assistance programs,” Biden warned, “based on the composition of the new government and the policies it advocates.”
(Los Angeles Times, May 22)
The reactionary U.S. client state of Saudi Arabia also threatened to cut off funds needed by the Lebanese if the pro-U.S. grouping was pushed out of office.
Hezbollah itself has stated
that it does not aim to take control of the Lebanese government, as this would put it in the position of responsibility for all of Lebanese society while the imperialists and their regional clients choked off the economy. Even
if it led the government, the real economic and much of the military power would be out of Hezbollah and its allies’ hands.
In addition, especially since this winter’s devastating attack by Israel on Gaza, some Lebanese
fear that if Hezbollah’s position in the government is stronger it will make an Israeli attack more likely. Though the Lebanese were able to beat back the 2006 Israeli aggression, Israeli bombing did enormous damage to the
infrastructure and killed some 1,500 people.
Right wing ‘buys’ votes
To prevent the opposition alliance from even making gains—let alone taking a majority—the government forces also used their superior funding to
buy votes. They flew pro-government voters back home from the Lebanese diaspora and, in addition, spent an average of $800 a vote.
All that should be taken into account in analyzing the June 7 national election results.
It is important to separate the actual results from the hype in the U.S. corporate media. While an important Hezbollah ally from the Christian community—the coalition led by Michel Aoun—lost votes and seats in the election, the
popular support for the anti-imperialist resistance remains strong.
Hezbollah, which represents the Shiite Muslim community—about half of the population of Lebanon—successfully led the guerrilla resistance to Israel’s
2006 invasion. It still has the best-motivated and efficient militia in Lebanon.
The U.S.-backed government coalition won 71 out of 128 seats in Parliament, a gain of one over the last election four years ago. The
opposition alliance, in which Hezbollah participates, won the other 57 seats. This left the split in Parliament about the same as before.
Resistance has popular support
Hezbollah ran in alliance with the smaller
Amal party in 11 Shiite areas, winning all 11 seats and getting 92 percent of the votes there. It got an almost unanimous vote in the South of Lebanon, where everyone knows it is only Hezbollah and some smaller allies that
defend them from an Israeli attack.
The opposition coalition as a whole won more than 55 percent of the popular vote countrywide. The U.S.-backed coalition won only 45 percent, but wound up with 55 percent of the seats.
Lebanon’s election laws divide voting results by religious affiliation based on an out-of-date census that severely distorts real proportional representation. That is why it is possible to have such a big difference
between the popular vote breakdown and the number of seats.
Lebanon is not the only country whose voting laws distort the popular results. In the U.S., for example, the Electoral College method of electing the president
gives greater weight to rural voters in sparsely populated states, so that in 2000 George W. Bush won the election even though John Kerry led in the popular vote.
Of the 128 seats in Lebanon’s Parliament, half are
reserved for Christians and half for Muslims. These seats are divided within each community, so that, for example, Sunnis and Shiites each get 27 seats, the Druse receive eight and two seats go to the Allevites. On the
Christian side, the Maronites get 34 seats, the Orthodox 14, the Catholics eight, the Armenians six and the remaining two go to other Christian minorities.
Difference of one vote
As of now, the opposition
coalition is demanding representation in the new government to reflect its popular-vote victory, despite its losing one seat in Parliament.
Despite the interference in the election, Hezbollah quickly conceded. In a later
statement, however, the resistance conceded nothing to the U.S. “The U.S. is annoyed by the level of popular support for the Resistance and its choices,” Hezbollah said. “That’s why it resuscitated its unfair classifications of
Hezbollah and invalid accusations against it of terrorism and anti-democracy.”
Condemning U.S. intervention, Hezbollah concluded its statement by noting: “The performance of Hezbollah and the Lebanese opposition and
their position after the election outcome is a model for Washington and those who claim democracy in the world to follow and to learn from.” (Al Manar, June 9)
|
