Wissam Yafi

Earlier this month, the Lebanese cabinet issued a bill allowing six new members of parliament to be elected in 2013 from the expatriate community. There have been few other details from the government on the rules and regulations for such an election, and it still needs to be ratified by the parliament. This has led some experts and previous ministers to express some preliminary concerns—some regarding the potential constitutional conflicts of these new MP slots, and others regarding the technicality of the voting itself. Conspicuously missing from the ensuing debate is what the actual purpose of the expatriate voting is, and why it should be of interest to them at all. Before delving into this issue, let us first consider the two concerns.
 
First, when it comes to its constitutionality, the concern here is that religious equality as well as fair confessional representation must be maintained according to the Lebanese constitution. As the new expatriate election law aims to keep the general Muslim-Christian ratio at parity, it still fails when it comes to confessional representation—six new parliamentary seats simply cannot accommodate the 18 existing sects. Therefore, according to its critics, in itself this is unconstitutional. While this is partially true, the constitution in its preamble clearly states, “The abolition of political confessionalism is a basic national goal and shall be achieved according to a gradual plan.” The constitution’s Section F, which is expressly titled, “On the Abolition of Political Confessionalism” explicitly states, “The first Chamber of Deputies which is elected on the basis of equality between Muslims and Christians [This actually occurred in 1992, exactly 20 years ago] takes the appropriate measures to realize the abolition of political confessionalism according to a transitional plan [This has never been implemented].” Therefore, the constitution is not only open to such an amendment, but actively encourages it. Therefore the following question is posed: Would it not appear quite viable to have a small and non-confessional group of expats allowed into parliament under the constitution’s aforementioned “transitional” plan? The message here to the government is this: Please keep confessionalism in Lebanon. Many expats left long ago because of its repercussions; and we simply are not interested in seeing it exported to our community. We have more innovative ways to represent our community than through confessional prisms even if we may accept the general Muslim-Christian ratio.
 
The second concern has to do with the technicality of the voting process and the preparedness of the Lebanese Foreign Ministry to take on this challenge. Some 50 percent of the existing Lebanese embassies across the worldare essentially understaffed—some even without an ambassador. Others are geographically difficult to reach by dispersed expats. With the absence of online registrations, the whole process is demotivating to the expat voter. Of course, all this assumes that there is no law that forces these embassies to take on this responsibility, whether understaffed or not. There is such a law—signed as far back as 2008—with ample funding, according to the experts. Excuses, delays or cancellations will mean breaking the law. Worse yet, the risk of not implementing the law, as wisely pointed out by an ex-minister of interior, is that any election loser could sue the election commission claiming that had the law been implemented, expat voting would have won them the race. It would be difficult to counter such a claim, potentially rendering the entire parliamentary election illegitimate. The message to the government is this: Notwithstanding the technical concerns voiced, it is no longer an issue of “if”. Just do it.
 
Notwithstanding the two commonly discussed points, there is an additional point to keep in mind, which arguably is the most important as it delves into the heart or reasoning of the expatriate vote to begin with. There are three types of Lebanese expats. The first is a “working expat” with strong connections to the homeland and frequent visits—sometimes the nucleus of the family is split with one spouse abroad and the other in Lebanon. For these working expats, the electoral law of 2008, which simply gives them the ability to vote from an embassy keeping everything else intact (128 local MPs), is perhaps a matter of convenience and should be sufficient. But most doubt that this is the real reasoning behind the law, as there are many other conveniences much closer to home that the Lebanese government does not afford its citizens. Why insist on this one? There is more to it.
 
At the other end of the expat spectrum, we find what I would term the “descendant expat,” who for all intents and purposes knows of a Lebanon—and may even garner sympathy to the “ancestral homeland”—but in reality no longer has any links at all with it, be they familiar, social, economic or political. For these expats, Lebanon is a spirit in a similar vein as French Canadians may feel to France, Aussies to Britain and Mexicans to Spain. Having travelled throughout the United States, South America and Europe, I have met many of these. Frankly, I see no short-term election law that will attract this type of expat to vote. They are simply out of touch.
 
This leaves us with the third type of expat. The “long-term” expat is defined by reasonably average connections to the homeland and occasional visitation. This type of expat generally cares about Lebanon and its future, but is not directly affected by its day-to-day. This type of expat, because of their longevity abroad, may have resources to help but needs incentivizing and worthwhile connectivity to support the country in the medium-to-long term. Now, this is the type of expat the Lebanese government is desperately hoping to tap with this law. Unfortunately, it will need to do more to attract them.
 
You see, this type of expat does not care much about voting for the 128 current MPs or local political parties because their interests are different. For instance, paving a local road here or there might not make much of a difference to them, but building a national highway system that allows for seamless regional trade would. Giving this or that citizen a job may not affect them much, but creating a free market with their host nations would, etc. To this effect, this type of expat is not that interested in confessionalism or gerrymandering. They want effective and transparent representation. The message to Lebanon is this: We expats live in environments that shield us from local issues and instead would prefer to focus on larger national policies. To us, dealing with local MPs has been and is a waste of our time. So, we would be more interested in seeing the expat law giving us the right to vote for a group of MPs that are dedicated to our interests, needs, and causes, which in turn help Lebanon. We prefer to have a catalyst MP contingent within parliament, supplying new ideas and help from the outside—a contingent, which we can easily reach, trust, lobby, and hold responsible.
 
What does all this mean? First it confirms the need to have expat MPs. In this the recent government decision to include an expat MP contingent is correct. Six is as good a number as any to start off with. Second, it means the government still has to outline the details of these expat MPs—if they will be chosen by geography or by simple count. Third, it means expats themselves may need to be given the choice of either voting for their local MP or alternatively voting for an expat MP. In this the government also still has to clarify its position. The government took a good step forward but still needs to do more. As election time is quickly approaching, if Lebanon needs its expats, it will have to accommodate. Sooner would be better than later.

 
Wissam Yafi is a commentator and the writer of a recent book titled Inevitable Democracy in the Arab World (Palgrave Macmillan 2012).