Lebanon’s electoral law debate: between constitutional principles and political domination

Lebanon’s electoral law has once again taken center stage in the country’s political landscape, with heated debates intensifying less than a year before the next parliamentary elections.

The current dispute revolves around the voting rights of Lebanese expatriates: should they be allowed to vote for candidates in their original electoral districts inside Lebanon, or should a special “expatriate district” be created with only six designated seats, effectively isolating them from influencing the election of the 128 members of parliament?

Leading the push to restrict expatriate voting to this separate district are three key political forces: Hezbollah, the Amal Movement, and the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM).

For these groups, the motive is clear. Expatriates represent a voting bloc that remains largely beyond their traditional networks of influence inside Lebanon. Unlike many residents, who are often tied to local patronage systems and political dependency, the diaspora tends to be more independent and less susceptible to the pressure, intimidation, and clientelist tactics that these parties routinely employ.

But the debate goes far beyond technical electoral details. It touches on fundamental constitutional and political issues at the heart of Lebanon’s democratic representation.

A constitutional violation

Restricting expatriates’ voting power to six seats in a newly created district stands in direct violation of Lebanon’s constitution, which guarantees equality among citizens. Such a move effectively divides voters into two unequal classes, those inside Lebanon who can vote in their registered districts, and those abroad whose political influence is confined to a symbolic, limited space.

Disproportionate representation

Allocating just six seats for the millions of Lebanese expatriates is grossly disproportionate to their numbers compared to the 128 seats representing residents. Demographic estimates indicate that a fair distribution would require between 40 and 45 seats. However, Hezbollah, the Amal Movement, and the Free Patriotic Movement vehemently oppose this idea. Their objective in creating a separate expatriate district is not to ensure fair representation, but rather to neutralize the diaspora’s ability to reshape the political map of the next parliament.

A double standard

Allowing expatriates to vote based on their country of residence rather than their official civil registration contradicts the principle applied to citizens living in Lebanon. Domestic voters must cast their ballots in their registered electoral districts, not based on where they live. Creating a separate standard for expatriates undermines the equality that the constitution and democratic norms are meant to protect.

Deeper political implications

Beyond questions of legality and equality, the issue exposes the entrenched political imbalance in Lebanon. In recent months, the state has repeatedly yielded to Hezbollah’s conditions, from government formation to judicial, military, and administrative appointments. The state has also yielded to Hezbollah’s interpretation of the ceasefire agreement, which limits disarmament to areas south of the Litani River. The recent “Raouche Rock” display further reinforced the perception that Hezbollah remains the dominant power controlling Lebanon’s political system.

This trajectory sends troubling signals both domestically and internationally, suggesting that Lebanon’s sovereignty and democratic processes continue to operate under Hezbollah’s shadow.

For the sake of Lebanon

For Lebanon’s future, the parliamentary elections must not be held under the terms dictated by Hezbollah, nor under the shadow of arms that intimidate voters and suppress the will of the people. Elections should embody the free and genuine expression of the Lebanese people’s choice, not a managed exercise shaped by coercion and imbalance.

Lebanon’s legitimate authorities, chiefly the presidency, the government, and all political actors, must assume their national and historical responsibilities at this critical juncture. They face a real test of their commitment to the constitution, to sovereignty, and to genuine independence.

The choice is stark: either the elections become a turning point for restoring the state and its role, or they devolve into yet another mechanism for legitimizing Hezbollah’s domination. Safeguarding the electoral process from political intimidation is not a matter of preference, it is a national duty that admits no hesitation or compromise.