Three Arab countries' citizens are preparing to head to the polls. They could be followed by a fourth, Tunisia, if President Kais Saied's plan to bring Tunisian politics in order goes smoothly. Iraq is holding parliamentary elections in two days. After the Iraqi elections, Libyans will head to the polls to vote in the presidential and parliamentary elections scheduled for late this year. The elections' aim is to finally put Libya on the path to stability after Moammar Gaddafi's overthrow couldn't and instead left various loyalties and internal schisms exploding, in addition to creating opportunities for foreign intervention at the invitation of domestic parties, as always happens.
After that, the Lebanese will prepare for their elections next spring. They are like all other Lebanese elections, an opportunity to reconsider everything, always granted at the last minute, which leaves insufficient time for any real reconsideration. They are currently looking into the date of the elections and the electoral lists, as well as expatriates' right to vote, the number of districts and even the number of deputies. These matters should have been decided long ago, but the Lebanese prefer to solve their problem late on, leaving no time for any real solutions to come about.
In these countries, there are inherited crises and others that emerged after the political developments that transpired over the last few years. Because of these crises, which have become citizens' bread and butter, elections have been seen as the gateway to salvation. All you hear, wherever you go, is talk about "reproducing the regime" or "change through the ballot box." These are beautiful phrases that almost convince hapless citizens that this ballot they will put in the box could create a shift in their countries and change their circumstances for the better.
In Iraq, early elections were decided on. They will be held six months ahead of schedule after the protests of 2019 witnessed the broadest mobilizations in opposition to Iranian interference in the country's history. They led to Adil Abdul-Mahdi's departure, with Mustapha al-Kadhimi replacing him after months of tense negotiations between the country's parliamentary blocs.
Elections were considered the best path to change after insurgencies and revolutions' failure to pave that path. The same rhetoric can be heard in Lebanon after its October 17 uprising, which also began in 2019, came to nothing. The political forces that emerged in the aftermath of this uprising, most of whom are under the "civic movement's" umbrella, are betting on the potential to change the composition of the country's parliament, which will be elected next spring in elections that the Lebanese government insists will go ahead. The same could be said of Libya, where the elections are seen as a gateway to ending divisions and to the emergence of a unified central authority.
No doubt, elections should be a chance to actualize change. That is their goal, as they provide the electorate with the chance to give a verdict on the preceding experience, either giving those who had been in power another chance or choosing new faces.
However, we are talking about countries whose elections are mired with impediments. The most prominent of these impediments is the influence exerted by foreign powers whose interventions have become decisive, at least amid the crises in the countries we are talking about. Bribery, given the abominable living conditions most voters suffer from, will be a major factor, as will the degree to which the integrity of the elections will be ensured by the body overseeing them.
It is no coincidence that you hear Arab governments voice their "keenness" on electoral integrity and citizens' right to cast their vote freely. These matters are taken for granted in countries where elections deserve to be called that, as for our part of the word…You hear, for example, Iraqi Prime Minister Mustapha al-Kadhimi saying his government is committed to ensuring the integrity of the elections. The same is said by Lebanon's interior minister. Western countries race to demand that the governments allow the electoral process to run its course smoothly. Meanwhile, the international community almost unanimously has little faith in the democratic process' potential for success in the Arab world.
Foreign powers' lack of confidence is met with equally limited internal confidence about the likelihood of change being realized through elections. The biggest indicator of that is the increased abstention rate. The feeling is almost universal: my vote will not make any difference or change anything. In Lebanon, over 60% of the electorate didn't vote in the last elections, and in Iraq, observers put the turnout rate at around 25 percent. Most voters know that the political forces and sects in power will not give them a chance to change anything in such a way that undermines their influence and interests. It was remarkable to see the most prominent religious figure in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, with all the moral influence he has on the countries' Shiites, call for broad participation in the elections, "to weed out the corrupt.”
For this reason, ensuring electoral integrity, even if it is achieved, does not suffice to ensure the process' success. It could be outweighed by the foreign influence, which could trump candidates' loyalties and the votes of the electorate. Perhaps the two most prominent cases of countries suffering from this problem are Iraq and Lebanon, where the loyalty of political forces allied with or subordinated by Iran to that country has become likely to play a major role in the elections. These forces, especially in those two countries, have come to see elections as part of the battle for influence between them and the Western powers competing with them, powers that Tehran and its allies accuse of supporting the opposition. In Lebanon, these allies speak openly about Western intervention in favor of civil forces as they attempt to flip the internal balance of power.
In Iraq, Shiite forces compete to demonstrate their loyalty to Iran. There is Muqtada Sadr's bloc (Sairoon alliance), which is said to be the favorite in these elections, and the Fateh alliance, which represents the Popular Mobilization Forces, as well as other alliances led by former Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and Nouri al-Maliki. As for the Sunni forces, their loyalties are now divided between the parties and clans that make up their support base after they had lost their former influence. The Kurdish blocs continue to have a "balance of influence" between Sulaimaniyah and Erbil, between the Patriotic Union and the Democratic Party.
Spoil sharing on the basis of sectarian quotas has, in Iraq as in Lebanon, led to the country's top three leadership positions divided based on this rule, governance's rule, whereby loyalty is to the sect. Considered the gateway to power, it precedes loyalty to the nation. Under such circumstances, the potential for change becomes limited, and striving to reproduce the regime, which is now being discussed, is akin to a dream.
