Don't Dismiss Obama's Role in Lebanese Elections

This has been tossed around on the internets today and I think it is very much an open question. There was a wide expectation that Hezbollah was going to win the parliamentary elections, instead the more pro-western March 14th movement was victorious. The AP framed the elections as "the first major political test in the Middle East since President Barack Obama called last week for a 'new beginning between the United States and Muslims.'" So presumably Obama passed the test -- but is this right? Could Obama's speech have had such an impact that it contributed to a March 14th victory?  In short, while there are plenty of reasons to be very cautious in jumping to that conclusion given Lebanon's politics, Obama's impact definitely shouldn't be dismissed by observers either.

Many Lebanese experts have dismissed the impact of the speech pointing to a variety of domestic reasons. Lebanon political expert Dr. Omri Nir told the Jerusalem Post that

 "I didn't see an impact of the speech [from Cairo] on the elections campaign," he added. Nir attributed the unexpected outcome to internal politics among Lebanon's Maronite Christians. Lebanese citizens usually cast their vote based on the people running and not according to party lines, he explained.

Christopher Dickey at Time also makes the useful point that "The fact is, Lebanese politics are uniquely treacherous... when elections take place, that old adage, 'all politics is local,' comes into play at every level and in very particular ways."

But although many Lebanese political experts dismiss the impact of Obama, sometimes issue-area experts are so immersed in their area that they really can't see the forest from the trees. The fact is that atmospheric changes in political environments matter and are often really hard to detect at the time.

One thing I found bizarre about the literature on democratic transitions was how most of the theories were on the causes were focused almost exclusively on specific internal developments and largely neglected outside factors, such as the international movements or events. For instance, concerning Spain's transition most theories focus on internal dynamics and often totally ignore the demonstration effect of having a successful democratic club in the European Community next door. While each of the southern European transitions happened as a result of their own internal political dynamics, it wasn't a coincidence that Spain, Greece, and Portugal all transitioned at the same time. Additionally, it is not a coincidence that there are often particular years at which revolutionary change happens suddenly -- such as 1989 and 1848. Each successive revolution in those years evolved due to its own particular circumstances -- but the demonstration effect contributed to the snowball of change that occurred.

Now what happened in Lebanon was no revolution. We are talking about a small shift in the electorate. But just as the atmosphere of 1989 or 1848 created an impetus for change, the same principles apply to 2009 -- albeit on a much much smaller scale. President Obama's efforts beginning with his inaugural address, continued with his overtures to Iran, his engagement in the peace process, leveling with Israel on settlements, his speech in Cairo, and the nature of his story and background -- may not be revolutionary -- but they have no doubt changed the climate of American engagement with the region.

It would follow then that if Bush's approach and his policies had a negative impact in this regard, then dramatically changing the tone and approach would surely have to have some impact. For instance, under Bush, it was clear that American support for a particular candidate or party was likely a death blow in the Middle East. So the fact that the side that the Obama administration was clearly pulling for did better than expected -- or at least wasn't hurt by that stance -- would seem to suggest that there was some impact, since Obama's speech was last week, Biden did go to Beirut, and Ray Lahood was there today. Therefore, former Cheney adviser David Wurmser deserves to have a significant amount of egg on his face after tell the WSJ before the election that "The Lebanon vote could mark a major strategic shift for the region...Iran could increasingly be viewed as preeminent, while U.S. influence wanes."

Instead, the vote, at the very least demonstrates that Obama's approach is a vast improvement over the Bush administration. The Telegraph quotes, Rami Khouri, of the American University of Beirut,

"This was the first real victory by pro-American groups in the ideological battle that has defined this region in the last 10 years. Every time the US tried to help somebody in the region, it hurt them and they lost." A 25-year old software designer from West Beirut, said: "It was 'you are either with us or against us' before and both sides had this attitude. Now it is something in the middle with Obama and I think there is more freedom there."

However, despite all of this, it is really hard to tangibly assess the precise impact of Obama's engagement with the region on the election. And the fact that many point to the Iranian elections as the big test maybe very unfair to the Obama administration, since local issues may very well dominate and even though we may think otherwise the world does not always revolve around the United States. Nevertheless, while a great deal of politics is local, not all of it is. The international atmosphere matters and the approach by the Obama administration it seems has definitely helped change it -- the question that we are all wondering is by how much.

Comments

[melissamsouza]

Excellent, thank you. And just to comment on Dick Cheney's former advisor: anything coming from Cheney, or related to Cheney, will have the opposite effect. Cheney has the gaul to suggest Obama doesn't know much about the Middle East, when his own daughter admits that her people underestimated the degree of resistance that an invasion of Iraq would provoke. Only red-faced hicks like the Cheneys could be so hopelessly ignorant about that region, and the degree of anti-Americanism that permeates it, to move ahead with an invasion of that caliber. Cheney is the Terry McAuliff of the Republicans: nothing he does can go right; nothing he says makes any sense or bares any resemblance to the truth.

[STILJON]

If communication didn’t have an effect on reaching people then politics would be all policy with no speeches. The only way to affect change is through communication and action. Since we have little ability to take policy action in other countries then a genuine, intelligent and inspirational leader is our best hope for change.

[funkdome]

Look, the March 14th Alliance won 72 seats in 2005 under Bush. They won 71 seats this year under Obama.

Is this not empirical evidence that the US President's role in all of this is inconsequential? If it is deemed consequential, it apparently had negative consequences.

[jeanrenoir]

Likud and the neocons did their best when they used Bush as their ventriloquist's dummy to turn America into an arrogant pariah state like Israel, so that America would be truly joined to Israel at the paranoid hip. The disastrous results of this madness are obvious to almost all now. Obama has brilliantly reversed the situation with his moves to engage with the Islamic world to make America an honest broker in the Middle East again. Again, the results are obvious to almost all. Obama is Likud, AIPAC, and the neocons' very worst nightmare. The times they are a changin' for the right-wing in Israel. The best thing that's happened to Israel, and the world, in a long time.

[diak0n0s]

So then, how do you account for the EU's recent elections turning them more conservative?

[IamPhenom]

You're missing the point. Obama did not make a major, highly-anticipated speech directed at Europe like he did with the Muslim/Arab world.

Also, you're ignoring that even the right-wing European leaders are pro-American for the most part. It's not like Europeans voted in leaders who hate the USA and everything we stand for. You're ignoring that the Lebanese elections had a real clear choice between pro-American and anti-American candidates, unlike Europeans who essentially only have pro-American candidates.

Also, you are forgetting that even some of those left-wing European leaders, such as the UK's Labour Party, were very much in the BUSH/REPUBLICAN camp, so voting them out would not necessarily be about Obama at all.

[Marilyn-Malaysia]

Seriously, isn't this theory far-fetched? I watched the election report on Al Jazerra English live, trust me the Lebanese Christians were the main reason why March 14 Alliance won. Please don't humiliate March 14 Alliance by undermining their victory and give credit to Obama's Cairo speech.

[Ergon]

Let's give credit to the Lebanese accord that gives Christians 50% of the seats even though they are 40% of the population, and voting blocs that favour the Sunni parties but not Shiite, even though they are the largest group in Lebanon.

[Rangergirl]

Amen. The repubs whould have been all over the possibility that Their President did good...Our President Obama did good....They won't say anything possitive about President Obama.

[iceage7]

Finally, Adults in the white house

[DavidATolucaLake]

Dont look for his on Fox, the house of propaganda.

If thise elction would have happened during Bushs term it would be ALL over Fox, Hannity, Libaugh, etc.

But then they would have to be real journalists.

[wantthetruth]

Well duh. The National Security Network is a progressive group. I am sure they don't like to hang out on Fox.

[funkdome]

Actually, it did happen under Bush in 2005. Except that the March 14th Alliance won 72 seats under Bush and only 71 under Obama.

[wantthetruth]

I thought the general progressive idea was NOT to meddle in other countries affairs.

[Altruth]

Who is meddling?

[Poboy]

Hezbollah has accused Washington of trying to influence the June 7 election in favor of the pro-Western faction that dominates the government. The militant group said Friday that the visit by Biden and an earlier one by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton raised "strong suspicion and amounted to a clear and detailed interference in Lebanon's affairs."

U.S. officials have said they will review assistance to Lebanon depending on the composition of the next government, a warning clearly aimed at Hezbollah and its allies.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104429042

__________­__________­__________­______


While the sweet, soothing words in Cairo may have had an impact, it is much more likely that the threats had a bigger one.

[white mende man]

Obama's speech in Egypt IMO did sway the vote in the Christian areas against Hezbollah/Aoun parties. The choice Obama message of peace and stability was a message too hard to pass up by the voters. For the first time here was an American president putting Israel on the spot to take the high road to real peace and a real agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. After all no other country is directly affected by the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians so if there is a chance for stability in Lebanon the Lebanese voted for it. IMO the lebanese are finally growing up and rejecting violence. For Hezbollah to earn the good will of the population they will have to work harder and that to me is also a good thing.

[ApolloSpeaks]

NOBAMA EFFECT

If Max were a citizen of Lebanon would Barack Obama have played any part in his choice of parties and candidates? NO!

[watchTVgetSTUPID]

Right wing extremists can not bring themselves to admit the obvious ... Obama reaching out to the Mid East is already bearing fruit. They are reaching out to us as Obama reached out to them. Just like Carter's peace agreement with the US, Israel and Egypt, Obama looks like he is on his way towards real progress. I don't doubt if Bush Cheney Rumsfeld Wolfowitz made their doctrinal speech in Egypt, then Lebanon would have empowered Hamas to run the country.

[white mende man]

Hezbollah is Lebanese, Hamas is Palestinian