Resistance holds its own as tensions grow

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)