Lebanon’s parliament elected a long overdue president on Thursday after a two-year vacuum, ushering in hope for rebuilding the war-torn country while revealing a new balance of power within the internal political scene.
Hezbollah and the Amal Movement – often referred to in Lebanon as the Shia duo – both ended up voting for army commander Joseph Aoun as president, even though they had been fiercely opposed to his candidacy in the past.
Presidential elections, like all major decisions in Lebanon, need consensus. Major factions come to an agreement behind the scenes, and it is only then that a president is elected by the Parliament.
National consensus is the cornerstone of Lebanon’s sectarian-based power-sharing system, which has proven to be dysfunctional at times often leading to political gridlock, as was the case with the presidential vacuum since the end of 2022.
“Regional shifts, growing domestic discontent, and the need for international legitimacy have constrained their influence, pushing them toward accommodation rather than confrontation,” Imad Salamey, Middle East expert and Associate Professor at the Lebanese American University, told The New Arab.
Hezbollah’s military capabilities and manpower were dealt a severe blow during its almost 13-month war with Israel that ended in November 2024, which, along with the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, has incapacitated the Iran-backed Axis of Resistance.
Voting for Aoun reflects a “shift in the internal balance of power,” according to Salamey.
“While the Shia duo remains a dominant force, their willingness to compromise highlights their diminishing ability to dictate terms unilaterally,” he said, adding that they seek legitimacy under a president like Aoun who is backed by the Arab world and the West.
A flurry of diplomatic activity by the United States, Saudi Arabia, and France preceded Aoun’s election as president as pressure mounted on the political class to elect him, according to local media reports.
“This trade-off ensures Hezbollah and Amal [Movement] retain influence within a system increasingly dependent on foreign support,” Salamey said.
“They realised no one is going to rebuild the destroyed Shia areas of Lebanon except the Arab countries….[and] that Iran doesn’t have the means,” Michael Young, Middle East expert and Editor of Carnegie Middle East’s Diwan, told TNA.
|
|
The war with Israel led to an estimated $20 billion in losses across key sectors in Lebanon, with Beirut’s southern suburbs, the Bekaa region in the east, and the south of the country – all Shia majority areas – sustaining most of the damage, as large swathes of areas were destroyed by Israeli warplanes.
“They had to go along with the American and Saudi decision to put forward Joseph Aoun as president,” Young added.
Foreign actors were insistent on Aoun’s elections for a number of reasons. According to Salamey, the US and Saudi Arabia see Aoun as a “stabilising figure who can restore trust in Lebanon’s institutions”.
For Young, foreign powers saw the presidential elections in Lebanon as a “continuation of the implementation of [United Nations] Resolution 1701”.
UN Resolution 1701 is the basis for the ceasefire agreement between Hezbollah and Israel that ended the war in November. One of the clauses calls for the eventual disbandment of all armed groups and infrastructure in the country that do not belong to the army or the official security forces.
“Since the ceasefire with Israel, the Americans have been keen to consolidate a post-Hezbollah order in Lebanon” and “fill the security vacuum […] left by Hezbollah,” Young said.
Aoun’s election brings new hope to an ailing country struggling with long unresolved economic woes and one of the most destructive wars since the bloody 1975-1990 civil war.
Lebanon’s political class has stalled the implementation of any reforms in the public and banking sectors, where corruption has been rampant for years, as highlighted by the historic economic collapse that began at the end of 2019 and pushed more than half the population into poverty.
“The political class is corrupt and is trying to maintain the status quo of the country that benefits their interests,” Young said.
The international community has withheld aid for years as they were contingent on vital structural reforms that were never enacted by Lebanon.
Given the increased pressure to secure funding, there is room to engage in economic and financial reforms, according to Young. “I don’t think it will be easy for the political class to impose a status quo,” he said.
|
|
Foreign interference to solve major national issues and end political deadlocks is a hallmark of Lebanon’s chaotic history. Various presidents – many of whom were army commanders – were elected as president as a result of foreign influence, such as army commander Michel Suleiman in 2008 after the Doha agreement ended an 18-month-long political crisis.
“Foreign powers, particularly the US and Saudi Arabia, see Joseph Aoun as a stabilising figure who can restore trust in Lebanon’s institutions. His leadership of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), a rare institution trusted by all Lebanese, represents an opportunity to unify the country and advance reforms,” Salamey said.
According to Young, Aoun enjoys national credibility, “unlike previous army commanders…and has presided on the one institution that has more or less continued to function since the collapse of the state in 2019”.
The president in Lebanon as per the Constitution has limited powers, and the main executive functions are carried out by the government, which has been in a caretaker capacity since the term of the previous president ended.
“While the president has limited direct influence over reforms, Aoun’s election creates the conditions for progress. His leadership could restore trust in state institutions and attract foreign aid,” Salamey said.
Houshig Kaymakamian is a journalist covering Lebanon and the Middle East
Follow her on X: @houshigk
