Lebanon has been without a President of the Republic since the end of Michel Aoun’s mandate in 2022. But as Parliament agreed on the election of the former Commander of the Armed Forces, Joseph Aoun, political deadlock in the country might persist

Lebanon has a President: and it could have been Joseph Aoun, or no one else. News like this could only have been written the day after, to leave room for disbelief, to disabuse oneself of the inertia with which it was repeated, without thought: it is a guideless country, a country – decapitated. Lebanon is no longer a country without a President, and what remains of the nation still finds it hard to believe. 

The electoral landscape changed so rapidly in the month that followed the ceasefire with Israel, decreed on November 27 – despite having been violated a thousand times by the Israeli Army – that until the day before, some contemplated the possibility of yet another failure: the thirteenth one. And instead, after twelve sessions that ended in paralysis, the fourteenth President of the Lebanese Republic was elected: securing 71 votes in the first round – where the Shiite tandem voted blank -, and 99 in the second, the final one. 

At the call to the polls on the morning of Thursday, January 9, all 128 members of Parliament were present. The votes of 86 of them – the two-thirds of the Chamber – were needed for the election to be successful.

Analysts were predicting a presumed parliamentary majority, commenting on the withdrawal of rival candidates – both the major, such as Hezbollah-backed Suleiman Frangieh, and the minor ones, like Elias Baissari or Jihad Azour; they were hypothesizing plebiscitary consensus towards former army chief Joseph Aoun, after Hezbollah’s timid yes, which came last Wednesday, January 8. About how it could have been one of the very rare cases of an election in the history of Lebanon obtained in the first round: after that of Fouad Chehab, in 1958, following another period of political and sectarian tension in the country, in the aftermath of the crisis of 1958; and that of Elias Sarkis, in 1976, one year after the civil war had begun. This one proved not to be – having the votes of the Shiite tandem of Hezbollah and Amal waited a round before granting their consent: yet this is not the only difference with the two cases mentioned, both occurred in the aftermath of a period of political pressure and civil unrest.

Chehab’s election was also seen as a stabilizing choice that bridged the gap between opposing factions; he, too, served as the Commander-in-Chief of the Lebanese Armed Forces in 1945, a position he held until his election as President in 1958. Concerning the election of 1976, then, it was also influenced by significant external and internal dynamics, including foreign involvement. With the difference that, compared to the post-Taif political landscape, the President of back-then was holding much more power; and if Hafez al-Assad’s Syria used to have a strong say in the matter of Lebanese presidential elections, with the country’s direct military intervention in the Civil War and its broader strategy to maintain influence over Lebanon, that of Ahmed al-Sharaa has more urgent issues on its newly-liberated agenda.

Certainly, there have been foreign interventions which have weighed on the election of the former Army Chief, but instead of Assad’s Syria, another axis, the American-Saudi one. Yet the Lebanese who survived more than two years of economic, energy, and political crisis, always associated with impersonal ‘corruption’, ‘statelessness’ or ‘complexity’, seem to care little, as if it did not concern them: what matters is that, finally, there is someone to be held accountable.

Reflecting regional change, Di Lampedusa’s principle

“Electing the president of Lebanon’s republic had always been a Syrian privilege,” commented a passerby in the weirdly empty neighborhood of Hamra, Beirut, in the morning of Thursday: “now it’s an American one.” “Nothing will be different, real changes don’t happen from one day to the other,” echoed someone else.

It seems the typical case of Di Lampedusa’s principle – from the name of the Sicilian author of the historical novel Il Gattopardo, ‘The Leopard’ – of “changing everything for everything to remain the same.” In other words, that in order to maintain the status quo, one must accept change: so that the best way to respond to seriously disruptive change threatening substantial political transformation is to make concessions to those who are posing it, to appease and diffuse political energies and emotions, thus placating, appropriating and incorporating the opposition in order to secure the older-prevailing system. Looking at 19th-century Sicily during the unification of Italy, Di Lampedusa’s aristocrats, the Falconeri, understood that societies might embrace certain progressive reforms to alleviate tensions while ensuring the broader societal structure remains stable.

In this lens could be read the final support of Hezbollah – as well as that of all political forces involved in the matter: from Lebanese Forces’ Samir Geagea, who announced himself “ready to consider” Aoun’s candidacy for President, should Hezbollah and its allies announce their support for the General; to PSP’s Walid Joumblatt, who insisted on the necessity of consensus around his “unifying” name. From the Saudi, the American, and even the French mediators – the latter two still in charge of overseeing the extremely volatile ceasefire with Israel, which continues to bomb and occupy southern Lebanon; to the same Israelis, evidently not interested in the reopening of the northern front, where the displaced settlers have not yet returned to.

Nevertheless, without that international support, Lebanon would neither benefit from the promised aid, gain the attention of the international community, nor guarantee a serious plan for the post-war reconstruction. This is the clear message that Lebanese officials have received from various powers through envoys arriving in Beirut before Thursday’s electoral session.

The Saudi envoy, Yazid bin Farhane, was back in Beirut on Wednesday morning after a visit last week. Meanwhile, the French envoy, Jean-Yves Le Drian, met with various political forces to convince them to support Joseph Aoun. On Monday, it was the American emissary, Amos Hochstein, who made the trip. The messages conveyed jointly by the Americans, French, and Saudis included pressures as well as incentives to reach a consensus around the army commander.

International intervention to influence the presidential deadline is no longer a secret, to the point that in recent days, the election seemed to be an international issue rather than a democratic competition between candidates backed by Lebanese factions. This was evident in the visit of US envoy Amos Hochstein, who spoke clearly about consolidating the ceasefire, Hezbollah’s commitment to implementing the agreement and withdrawing its weapons from the south of the Litani River, and holding the presidential election, even in the absence of an internal consensus. Hochstein, like the Saudi envoy before him, made it clear that army chief Joseph Aoun was the preferred candidate of the five-nation group on Lebanon, which comprises the US, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt. Prior to his visit to Lebanon, Hochstein went to Saudi Arabia and Qatar to make sure there was a unified position and that the choice was limited to a single candidate while striving to gather the votes needed to elect their favorite. 

In parallel, intensive contacts took place among the Amal movement, Hezbollah, and the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) to agree on a consensual candidate as an alternative to Joseph Aoun: however, the negotiations did not result in any agreement. 

In summary, Lebanon had found itself divided between two camps: those advocating for the election of a president who implements UN resolution 1701 and garners international trust, and those rejecting any interference, insisting on a consensus that protects the interests of all forces and components. For the Amal-Hezbollah tandem, accepting Joseph Aoun was not an easy option, as it would be perceived as a political defeat adding to the military setback suffered during the last war. But it seems they had no choice. In addition to diplomatic pressure, in fact, the Party of God has been also facing internal pressure: challenged in the political arena, but also at Beirut airport, where Iranian aircraft are under the authorities’ scrutiny, the party has been forced to activate its levers. 

But it is also impossible to ignore the role and influence of Iran, which considers itself as part of the confrontation across the region. During discussions between international envoys in Lebanon on how to ensure Aoun’s election without the tandem’s consent, signals were sent that the issue could be resolved in cooperation with Iran, in exchange for security and political guarantees. These guarantees include freedom of movement for Hezbollah leaders – after a campaign of assassinations by Israel – who have stepped up their public appearances, as well as assurances about Hezbollah’s influence in politics, and easing military pressure on Iran. 

This context also explains the intervention of French President Emmanuel Macron, who said that Iran’s nuclear program is nearing a point of no return, which seems to include an implicit threat backed by American and Israeli pressure to push Iran to change its positions, both on the nuclear issue and at regional level, notably in Lebanon, concerning weapons and their transport, as well as the neutralization of their use both in the south and north of the Litani River.

The first speech

These and other issues were tackled by the newly-elected President Joseph Aoun during his first speech, as he entered the hemicycle to take the oath of office before MPs, the caretaker Cabinet and foreign diplomats. Prior to his entrance, the national anthem was played as he reviewed the troops forming a guard of honor around him. “I am the first president of Lebanon’s second centenary, at a time of great upheaval in the Middle East,” said Aoun, the first President elected from the south of Lebanon, as he took the oath of office. 

Regardless of the way he was chosen, with foreign countries interfering on the subject, his presidential speech touched not only the exclusivity of weapons in the hands of the state and the urgent need to rebuild the south, but also talked about necessary reforms, such as lifting of bank confidentiality,  developing the electoral law to respect the rotation of power and ensure better representation, while enshrining the diaspora’s right to vote, as well as forming a social protection network including comprehensive health coverage: knowing that reforms have been opposed by all the political class in the past years, although the President lacks any executive powers and therefore needs a government to cooperate with him.

“We’re going through a crisis of power, a crisis of understanding of democracy, a crisis of power and leaders. I pledge to the Lebanese people that I will work to restore Lebanon’s image abroad, and to fight poverty and unemployment,” he continued. “The authorities will have a monopoly on arms. The State must invest in its army, to be able to protect its borders, fight smuggling and terrorism, and prevent Israeli aggression on its territory.” Once again, a round of applause followed the President-elect’s statement on weapons.

Describing his mandate as one of “openness to the east and the west,” Aoun claimed he will practice “positive neutrality,” that will work to establish the best relations with Arab countries, without forgetting our martyrs and prisoners. “In view of the regional changes, we have a historic opportunity to discuss with Syria how to resolve all the issues, in particular respect for the sovereignty of both countries and the issue of the missing, as well as dealing rationally with the issue of refugees.”

“My mandate is yours, dear deputies,” he concluded, “and that of all Lebanese who want a strong state. We have no time to lose. Our duty is to be statesmen and women who think of the future of our young generations, of the public interest and not private interests. I will not disappoint you.”

However, the first quest to deal with will be the guarantee of a lasting and respected ceasefire with Israel. Just a few days earlier, in his Monday’s speech, Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem had said that the party “has decided to give the state a chance and let it assume its responsibilities,” saying he considered that any attack by Israel was directed against the state, against the international community and against the guarantors of the agreement. “It is their responsibility, and they must assume it fully,” he insisted. “During this period, we are patient and do not want to take any action that would force us to take direct responsibility for events that should be dealt with collectively,” he said.

International pressure had mounted for a successful outcome with just 17 days remaining in a ceasefire to deploy Lebanese troops alongside United Nations peacekeepers in south Lebanon. Aoun, who has run the Lebanese Armed Forces for eight years, now faces the daunting tasks of overseeing the ceasefire terms and naming a Prime Minister to lead reforms demanded by international creditors to alleviate the country’s multiple crises. As fireworks began exploding in Beirut following the election – a welcome change for many citizens who became accustomed to real Israeli airstrikes – all eyes will be on the Lebanese Army and its obligation to ensure the areas it controls are safe for thousands of civilians who are attempting to rebuild after months of devastating combat.