Majority of Presidential Terms in Lebanon End in Conflicts, Wars or Vacuum

Lebanese national flags fly at half-mast outside the presidential palace as Lebanon marks the two-year anniversary of the August 2020 Beirut port explosion, in Baabda Lebanon August 4, 2022. (Dalati & Nohra)
Lebanese national flags fly at half-mast outside the presidential palace as Lebanon marks the two-year anniversary of the August 2020 Beirut port explosion, in Baabda Lebanon August 4, 2022. (Dalati & Nohra)
TT

Majority of Presidential Terms in Lebanon End in Conflicts, Wars or Vacuum

Lebanese national flags fly at half-mast outside the presidential palace as Lebanon marks the two-year anniversary of the August 2020 Beirut port explosion, in Baabda Lebanon August 4, 2022. (Dalati & Nohra)
Lebanese national flags fly at half-mast outside the presidential palace as Lebanon marks the two-year anniversary of the August 2020 Beirut port explosion, in Baabda Lebanon August 4, 2022. (Dalati & Nohra)

Lebanon only twice witnessed a smooth transition of power from one president to a successor in its 79 years of independence.

Out of 12 presidents who had come to power since 1943, only twice was the transition a smooth process, underlining the extent of the complexities that have plagued the country for decades.

Presidential terms often end in conflict, vacuum or wars.

Two months before the end of President Michel Aoun’s term, vacuum appears to be the likely scenario in store.

The last time vacuum took place was in 2014 after the term of Aoun’s predecessor, Michel Suleiman, ended without political rivals agreeing to a successor. It took them over two years to agree on Aoun’s election as head of state.

The constitution stipulates that a quorum of 86 lawmakers is needed to elect a president at parliament. Of those numbers, 65 votes are needed for a candidate to be elected president.

At the current parliament, it is a hard ask for the rival parties to secure 65 votes for any candidate without them reaching a political settlement ahead of the elections.

Former minister, Professor Ibrahim Najjar told Asharq Al-Awsat that the weeks and months preceding the end of a term of a president are usually marked by “ugly practices” that spark the drive to form a new majority to replace the former one in what is seen as rotation of power.

The end of presidential terms in Lebanon have often witnessed controversies, such as foreigners being naturalized for hefty sums, the division of spoils, and preparations for family relatives to assume the political mantle.

In other words, Lebanon is a democratic state only on paper, not in practice, he added.

Furthermore, Najjar noted that ends of presidential terms in Lebanon, since the signing of the 1989 Taif Accord, have all been different.

The post-Taif period was marked by Syria’s hegemony over Lebanon. It witnessed the extension of the terms of presidents Emile Lahoud and Elias Hrawi. After the Syrian troop withdrawal in 2005, Hezbollah became the dominant player.

The Iran-backed party sought to impose Aoun as president. The period witnessed a string of political assassinations, the government headquarters in downtown Beirut were besieged by pro-Syria and Hezbollah loyalists and the parliament was suspended.

The pressure culminated in the 2008 signing of the Doha agreement that led to Michel Suleiman’s election as president instead of Aoun.

Slighted, Aoun contested Suleiman’s every move throughout his term until he was elected his successor.

His election was also an arduous task, however.

Suleiman left the presidential palace at the end of his term in 2014, but sharp political divisions hindered an agreement over his successor, leaving Lebanon in vacuum.

Aoun’s allies exerted their pressure by forcing officials to choose between heading to the “edge of hell” or the “edge of chaos”.

Revolts, vacuum and war

Since 1943 and up until the Taif, Lebanon witnessed the election of eight presidents: Beshara al-Khoury, Camille Chamoun, Fuad Chehab, Charles Helou, Suleiman Franjieh, Elias Sarkis, Bashir Gemayel and Amin Gemayel. Post-Taif, Lebanon witnessed five presidents: Rene Mouawad, Elias Hrawi, Emile Lahoud, Michel Suleiman and Michel Aoun.

Political analyst George Ghanem noted that the majority of ends of terms never witnessed a smooth transition of power.

Pre-Taif, the only smooth transition happened between Chehab and Helou, he said.

Post-Taif, the only smooth transition happened between Hrawi and Lahoud during the time of Syria’s political and security hegemony over Lebanon, he added.

Lebanon has grown accustomed for ends of presidential terms to be times of peaceful or bloody revolts, constitutional vacuum, tensions, tumult and wars, he explained.

Khoury was toppled in 1952 in a peaceful coup against the constitution. It was a period of unrest and a general strike that led to Chamoun’s election, noted Ghanem.

Chamoun, himself, was ousted in a bloody coup during which Lebanon was divided along sharp sectarian and regional lines: One camp supported Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser and the other was pro-American and West.

The coup started in 1958 and only ended with Chehab assuming power, said Ghanem.

Helou’s term ended with problems with Palestinian freedom fighters. Franjieh’s term ended with the civil war, which erupted on April 13, 1975.

Sarkis’ term ended in 1982 with Israel’s invasion of Lebanon.

Bashir Gemayel was his successor and he was killed days after his election in 1982. He was succeeded by his brother Amin.

Amin’s term ended without the election of a successor. Aoun, then army commander, formed a military government that was boycotted by Muslim politicians, leading to a constitutional-legal dispute over its legitimacy, said Ghanem.

Another government, headed by Salim al-Hoss, was in place and it was seen as a representative of Muslims. Amin viewed it as illegal and unconstitutional because its actual prime minister was Rashid Karameh, who was assassinated.

That rendered the cabinet a caretaker one and Hoss was only named as its acting head.

Post-Taif

Mouawad was Lebanon’s first president to be elected post-Taif. He was elected in November 1989, following a vacuum that began with the end of Amin’s term.

Mouawad was assassinated 18 days into his tenure. He was succeeded by Hrawi.

Crisis erupted at the end of his term, which was extended for three years in 1995 through a controversial constitutional amendment that Syria is seen to have largely played a role in.

In 1998, Lahoud was elected Hrawi’s successor in a smooth process when Syria’s hegemony over Lebanon was almost at its peak. His term was supposed to end in 2004, but it was controversially extended with Syria’s blessing.

Lahoud’s term ended in 2007 a year after the 2006 July war between Israel and Hezbollah.

Lebanon at the time was sharply divided between the anti-Syria March 14 and pro-Syria March 8 camps.

March 14, along with their western and Arab allies, had been boycotting Lahoud over the extension of his term and his stances that favored Syria.

The period also witnessed a sharp divide between the March 14 and 8 camps over then Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s government.

Lahoud and his allies, notably Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement, viewed it as unconstitutional after its Shiite ministers had resigned.

Lahoud’s term ended on November 24, 2007. He issued a statement implying that he was handing power over to then army commander Michel Suleiman, who never acknowledged it, said Ghanem.

Siniora’s government consequently carried on operating by issuing decrees that ultimately were not implemented due to the tensions, which peaked on May 7, 2008 when Hezbollah and its allies seized control of west Beirut and some regions of Mount Lebanon after bloody clashes that left Lebanon on the brink of war.

Arab countries, led by Qatar, soon mediated a settlement that led to Suleiman’s election as president on May 25, 2008, as part of the Doha agreement.

Ghanem remarked that Suleiman’s term effectively ended in 2011 with the collapse of the Doha agreement, eruption of the so-called Arab Spring revolts and the American withdrawal from Iraq.

The last three years of his term were marked with bombings and security tensions in Lebanon, which was on the verge of yet another civil war, he noted.

Suleiman’s term ended in 2014 with no successor due to sharp political disputes.

Over 2 years of presidential vacuum

A proposal was made to extend his term to avert the vacuum, but Aoun, who had been eyeing the presidency for years and had opposed Suleiman’s presidency, rejected the suggestion because he knew his Hezbollah allies would not go with it.

From 2014 and until 2016, Lebanon witnessed 45 calls for the election of a president. Quorum was only met when a political agreement was reached to elect Aoun, which took place in October 2016, two years and six months after Suleiman left office.

Observers believe that Lebanon is headed to a similar vacuum when Aoun’s term ends on October 31.

Ghanem said the situation in the country is different from what it was like in 2014.

Politically, the number of candidates then was limited by a few known figures. Now, no clear frontrunner, major or serious candidates have emerged.

The political forces are fragmented, he noted. The March 14 camp is no more, Iran is incapable of imposing its candidate the way Syria used to, and no candidate has the ability to garner enough votes to secure a win.

Moreover, Lebanon does not have an acting government, only a caretaker one and debate is raging over its constitutionality.

Ghanem expects vacuum to prevail and for quorum to remain unmet at the presidential elections sessions to prevent a candidate from any of the rival camps to be elected.



Biden’s Legacy: Far-Reaching Accomplishments That Didn’t Translate into Political Support

US President Joe Biden waves while boarding Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on November 1, 2022. (AFP)
US President Joe Biden waves while boarding Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on November 1, 2022. (AFP)
TT

Biden’s Legacy: Far-Reaching Accomplishments That Didn’t Translate into Political Support

US President Joe Biden waves while boarding Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on November 1, 2022. (AFP)
US President Joe Biden waves while boarding Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on November 1, 2022. (AFP)

Sitting in the Oval Office behind the iconic Resolute desk in 2022, an animated President Joe Biden described the challenge of leading a psychologically traumatized nation.

The United States had endured a life-altering pandemic. There was a jarring burst of inflation and now global conflict with Russia invading Ukraine, as well as the persistent threat to democracy he felt Donald Trump posed.

How could Biden possibly heal that collective trauma?

“Be confident,” he said emphatically in an interview with The Associated Press. “Be confident. Because I am confident.”

But in the ensuing two years, the confidence Biden hoped to instill steadily waned. And when the 81-year-old Democratic president showed his age in a disastrous debate in June against Trump, he lost the benefit of the doubt as well. That triggered a series of events that led him Sunday to step down as his party's nominee for the November's election.

Democrats, who had been united in their resolve to prevent another Trump term, suddenly fractured. And Republicans, beset by chaos in Congress and the former president’s criminal conviction, improbably coalesced in defiant unity.

Biden never figured out how to inspire the world’s most powerful country to believe in itself, let alone in him.

He lost the confidence of supporters in the 90-minute debate with Trump, even if pride initially prompted him to override the fears of lawmakers, party elders and donors who were nudging him to drop out. Then Trump survived an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania and, as if on cue, pumped his fist in strength. Biden, while campaigning in Las Vegas, tested positive for the coronavirus Wednesday and retreated to his Delaware beach home to recover.

The events over the course of three weeks led to an exit Biden never wanted, but one that Democrats felt they needed to maximize their chance of winning in November’s elections.

Biden seems to have badly misread the breadth of his support. While many Democrats had deep admiration for the president personally, they did not have the same affection for him politically.

Rice University historian Douglas Brinkley said Biden arrived as a reprieve from a nation exhausted by Trump and the pandemic, reported The Associated Press.

“He was a perfect person for that moment,” said Brinkley, noting Biden proved in era of polarization that bipartisan lawmaking was still possible.

Yet, there was never a “Joe Biden Democrat” like there was a “Reagan Republican.” He did not have adoring, movement-style followers as did Barack Obama or John F. Kennedy. He was not a generational candidate like Bill Clinton. The only barrier-breaking dimension to his election was the fact that he was the oldest person ever elected president.

His first run for the White House, in the 1988 cycle, ended with self-inflicted wounds stemming from plagiarism, and he didn’t make it to the first nominating contest. In 2008, he dropped out after the Iowa caucuses, where he won less than 1% of the vote.

In 2016, Obama counseled his vice president not to run. A Biden victory in 2020 seemed implausible, when he finished fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire before a dramatic rebound in South Carolina that propelled him to the nomination and the White House.

David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to Obama who also worked closely with Biden, said that history would treat Biden kinder than voters had, not just because of his legislative achievements but because in 2020 he defeated Trump.

“His legacy is significant beyond all his many accomplishments,” Axelrod said. “He will always be the man who stepped up and defeated a president who placed himself above our democracy."

But Biden could not avoid his age. And when he showed frailty in his steps and his speech, there was no foundation of supporters that could stand by him to stop calls for him to step aside.

It was a humbling end to a half-century career in politics, yet hardly reflective of the full legacy of his time in the White House.

In March of 2021, Biden launched $1.9 trillion in pandemic aid, creating a series of new programs that temporarily halved child poverty, halted evictions and contributed to the addition of 15.7 million jobs. But inflation began to rise shortly thereafter as Biden’s approval rating as measured by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research fell from 61% to 39% as of June.

He followed up with a series of executive actions to unsnarl global supply chains and a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package that not only replaced aging infrastructure but improved internet access and prepared communities to withstand the damages from climate change.

In 2022, Biden and his fellow Democrats followed up with two measures that reinvigorated the future of US manufacturing.

The CHIPS and Science Act provided $52 billion to build factories and create institutions to make computer chips domestically, ensuring that the US would have access to the most advanced semiconductors needed to power economic growth and maintain national security. There was also the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided incentives to shift away from fossil fuels and enabled Medicare to negotiate drug prices.

Biden also sought to compete more aggressively with China, rebuild alliances such as NATO and completed the US withdrawal from Afghanistan that resulted in the death of 13 US service members.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 worsened inflation as Trump and other Republicans questioned the value of military aid to the Ukrainians.

Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack in Israel sparked a war that showed divisions within the Democratic party about whether the United States should continue to support Israel as tens of thousands of Palestinians died in months of counterattacks. The president was also criticized over illegal border crossings at the southern border with Mexico.

Yet it was the size of the stakes and the fear of a Biden loss that prevailed, resulting in a bet by Democrats that the tasks he began could best be completed by a younger generation.

“History will be kinder to him than voters were at the end,” Axelrod said.