More Commentary on the Metn Elections
Posted by Joshua on Tuesday, August 7th, 2007
Amine Gemayel did not get the majority of Christian votes (Unless one counts the Greek Orthodox and the Armenians as heretics). He only got the voices of the separatists Maronites.
Anyway this is an opportunity for Aoun and Gemayel to reconsider drafting a common realistic political program away from the hardliner militaristic Geagea.
BTW: Elias Murr is no longer the President’s son in law.
Joshua,
A sound summary of the by-election, the Gemayel dynasty, and the Christian rivalries. Not so different from my own summary on my blog, but it’s more credible coming from a Westerner. No one can accuse you of bias or belonging to a particular faction.
I greatly appreciated your analysis of the inter-Christian rivalries, which surfaced during the campaign and indeed throughout the weekend.
From personal experience, I am a Lebanese Greek Orthodox with a Maronite mother from a Kataeb Beiruti family and an Orthodox father from the SSNP region of Koura. Bringing both these families together has had encountered some turbulence over the decades, but it has survived nonetheless. Politics is one subject that simply is not discussed when both families come together. Of course my mother “converted” to the SSNP when she married my father, but her family remains staunchly Kataeb with a staunchly right-wing, Maronite ’superiority’ complex.
Having eyes into both worlds was invaluable to me as a youngster growing up. It became aware to me that underneath this tense and bitter SSNP-Kataeb rivalry was an underlying resentment between the Orthodox and the Maronites. The Orthodox have tended to focus on their “Eastern” character, perhaps as a result of 1000 years of defiance to Rome and the West, whereas the Maronites have always emphasised their Western links. I believe this culminated in the two leading divergent paths when the Ottomans left and the Allies entered. The Orthodox desired to embrace their “Eastern” heritage by embarking on an endeavour to create a nation that highlighted such distinctive characteristics, whereas the Maronites obviously went in the opposite direction with the desire of escaping the very Eastern world the Orthodox cherished.
Of course, that’s not to say that all Orthodox are one side of the fence and the Maronites on the other. Definitely you’ll find Orthodox who support parties like the LF, Ahrar and the Kataeb, just as you’ll find Maronites who support the SSNP (the previous leader of the SSNP was a Maronite and figures such as Gibran Khalil Gibran were supportive of a greater Syrian nation).
But even when you do find, for example, Orthodox who support the LF/Kataeb, the person is looked upon as supporting the “Maronite” path of politics. I assume a similar image would be portrayed a l’envers of a Maronite who supported the SSNP.
Perhaps I’ve been lucky in that I have a mixed family so I can’t fall into this sectarian trap of choosing one over the other.
Obviously with the power of the Christians having diminished of late, a greater emphasis on a single “Christian” role (which is Aoun today) has formulated in place of a more sectarian and conflicting approach. But as we witnessed on the weekend, the old rivalry does occasionally like to flare up.
Nur al-Cubicle said:
Take that, Feltman! Paf!
Kamal said:
Sorry to interrupt the anti-Maronite orgy on Syria Comment but:
1) Who has the breakdown of the non-Maronite Christian vote? I haven’t seen it anywhere – if anyone has, please share it. I believe the non-Maronite Christians vote was split (as opposed to voting as a bloc) but I’m waiting for more data. Now, if that information is not available, on what basis does Prof. Landis claim Orthodox and Catholics voted for Aoun?
2) Having made the (as yet) baseless claim, the Prof embarks on a shoddy exposition of inter-Christian rivalries, which can be summed up as: Aoun is an anti-feudalist who has inspired the support of non-Maronite Christians, historically wronged by Maronites, in dealing a blow to a Maronite feudal clan, the Gemayels. This is so funny, because it takes a piece of Aounist civil war-propaganda dating back to the late 80s (”General Aoun vs the feudal establishment”) and gives it a new twist by inserting the inter-Christian angle. Of course the inter-Christian divide exists (a topic for another day) but it was never part of Aounist propaganda because Aoun’s targeted support base was, and remains, the largest Christian community in Lebanon, the Maronites!
The modern/secular vs traditional/feudal dichotomy employed by Aoun supporters is sheer nonsense. Aoun’s FPM is as much of a personality cult, or MORE, than Lebanon’s other parties (all flawed). The FPM identity is just as sectarian (Christian, esp. Maronite, anti-Syrian and anti-Muslim) as other Lebanese parties (all sectarian). They are 2nd only to Hizballa on the scale of fanatical devotion to the Great Leader. As for Aoun coming to sweep feudalism away, this is blatantly contradicted by Aoun’s shameless alliance with the pro-Syrian feudal clans Franjieh, Karameh, Arslan, Murr… Please Prof, don’t peddle this claptrap.
3) Anyone, please show me evidence of M14 officials making ‘racist’ statements against Lebanese Armenians. (I will join you in condemning it outright.) Anger at Tashnag, the Armenian political party, does not equal racism, neither does accusing the party of blundering, nor even threatening them with political retribution. Those of you hurling accusations are acting like Zionists who charge critics of Israel with anti-semitism.
t_desco said:
Pressures on the Daily Star: How the US government is Pressuring the Lebanese press to refrain from criticizing Sanyurah or even Solidaire. Many of you were surprised to see a fine investigative article about Solidaire by Lysandra Ohrstrom in the Daily Star, of all places. You were correct to be surprised. My highly reliable (and well-placed) sources in Beirut are telling me that there were very strong reactions against the article by the Sanyurah government and its allies in the US embassy. The strongest reaction came from the USAID which funds the investigative page through an “accountability and transparency” grant. Don’t you like how the US defines “accountability and transparency”? The person who secured the USAID grant wrote that “the political agenda of the donors is not to undermine the fuoad Siniora government“. …
As’ad AbuKhalil
U.S. Keeps Close Vigil on Donors Sending Money to Aoun
The United States is keeping a tight vigil on Lebanese businessmen and other wealthy resident and non-resident Lebanese allegedly donating money to Gen. Michel Aoun and his Free Patriotic Movement.
The daily An Nahar on Tuesday, citing prominent sources, said “any citizen is subject” to the executive order issued by U.S. President George Bush which aims at blocking property of persons undermining Lebanon’s sovereignty or its democratic process and institutions. …
(Naharnet)
ausamaa said:
Aoun and his allies DEFEATED 14 March and their allies flat out. That is the bottom line, so let us not get too philosophical about it! The whole “good” world STOOD against Aoun, and he won.
So please, save us the headach and think of what will happen in “a” forthcoming Parlimentary Elections when Feb 14 and its “Good” supporters have to go against not only Aoun, but against Auon+Amal+Hizbullah+Franjeieh+Al Murr+SSNP+Karami+Yakan+ the rest of the “others”. It will be a disaster for the “good” guys. Can “they” not even think straight?
Kamal said:
CHRISTIAN SUPPORT FOR AOUN DECLINES
But the General is still a leading presidential candidate
David Kenner, NOW Staff, August 3, 2007
http://nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=8821
According to a recent Sofres poll, Lebanese Christians have become steadily more critical of opposition leader Michel Aoun since the escalation of Lebanon’s political crisis in January. Nevertheless, Aoun remains the most popular choice for president. Explaining this situation goes a long way to revealing Aoun’s political strengths and weaknesses.
The poll, conducted in May by Sofres Liban, included 2,000 Lebanese Christians from across the country. Sofres Liban is the Lebanese branch of Taylor Nelson Sofres PLC, the #2 ranked global market research and information group based in London. It is worth noting, however, that the survey was done before the outbreak of conflict in Nahr al-Bared – events which likely impacted opinion on many of the issues covered.
According to the poll’s findings, the ongoing political deadlock has caused Aoun’s reputation to erode significantly among Christians. In a January Sofres poll, 50% of Christians stated that they had a favorable impression of Aoun, while 40% had a negative impression. By May, only 41% of Christians answered that they had a favorable opinion, and 52% had a negative opinion.
In contrast, March 14 leader Samir Geagea saw his favorability rating improve from 43% positive and 45% negative in January, to 54% positive and 40% negative in May.
The decline in Aoun’s reputation has been mirrored by a Christian shift toward March 14 in general. Christian support for March 14 grew from 35% in January to 42% in May, while support for March 8 shrunk slightly during the same time period, from 34% to 31%. 27% of Christians, however, still respond that they support neither March 8 nor March 14, a figure that has been relatively stable throughout the duration of the conflict.
The engine for this growing discontent seems to be Aoun’s alliance with Hezbollah. Many Christians are, and always have been, wary of the armed Shia group. When asked which party represented the greatest threat to them, 25% of Christians, a plurality, named Hezbollah. 55% of Christians favored the unconditional disarmament of Hezbollah in May – an increase from 47% two months prior. Disapproval of Aoun’s Memorandum of Understanding with Hezbollah has also increased recently, from 41% in March to 52% in May.
But despite the growing disagreement with General Aoun’s political alliances, a plurality of Lebanese Christians still favor Aoun in the upcoming presidential elections this September. According to the Sofres poll, Aoun was the choice of 34% of Christians for president. The next closest contender was Samir Geagea with 21%, followed by Amin Gemayel at 10%. 15% of Christians polled said that they supported none of the potential candidates for president.
So why does Aoun still come out ahead if his positions are losing support among the Christians?
Obviously, a major reason is that Aoun is the only opposition member who is a viable presidential candidate, while support for March 14 presidential candidates is divided between Geagea, Gemayel, Boutros Harb and Nassib Lahoud (who each hold on to 4% of Christian support) and others. The combined support of the top four March 14 candidates is 39% – exceeding the level of support for Aoun’s candidacy. As the presidential election nears, the March 14 coalition will likely settle on one candidate and thereby consolidate pro-government Christian support.
However, the advantage Aoun enjoys as the opposition’s central Christian figure should not be understated. His unique position as the only March 8 figure with real presidential stature has allowed him to gather Christians sympathetic to the opposition in a way that no candidate has been able among March 14 Christians.
Aoun also benefits from the fact that he is not defined solely by his current political stands. From the late 1980s until quite recently, Aoun established himself as one of Lebanon’s most uncompromising anti-Syrian leaders. From his attempt to drive the Syrians out of Lebanon in 1989 to his lobbying in favor of the American Syria Accountability Act in 2003, Aoun spent years building up a great deal of trust amongst Lebanon’s Christian community. While his current alliance with Hezbollah has greatly damaged this reputation, there are still some Lebanese Christians who hold out hope for the return of the “old Aoun.”
This is borne out when Lebanese Christians are asked what faction the next president should come from. In the Sofres poll, 29% of Christians favor a president from the March 14 camp, and 22% favor a president from March 8 – numbers relatively consistent with the overall balance of power between the rival factions in the Christian community. However, a substantial 11% of Christians announced that they favored an outcome where the March 14 coalition allied itself with General Aoun and supported him for the presidency.
Aoun’s advisors should be telling him that his presidential chances remain good – but that his alliance with Hezbollah is causing him to slowly bleed Christian support. He is currently benefiting from divided Christian strength among the March 14 forces and the strong support base he built up before 2005. However, these are two rapidly-dissolving advantages: the March 14 coalition will likely soon unite around a presidential candidate, and the longer Aoun remains tied to groups like Hezbollah, the faster many Christians are going to forget about his past accomplishments.
Ford Prefect said:
Sorry to break into this interesting discussion of medieval sectarian strife in Lebanon, but the following from Reuters is worth the interruption:
Syria hosts Iraq security meeting, U.S. to attend
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis
DAMASCUS, Aug 7 (Reuters) – Syria will host an international security meeting on Iraq on Wednesday although the United States doubts Damascus is willing to play a role in stopping violence in its eastern neighbour.
The two-day meeting will be held in a government complex on the outskirts of Damascus. Officials from Iraq, the United States, Britain, Iran, Turkey and Jordan will attend, a Syrian official said.
“Washington is making a gesture towards Syria by attending the meeting in Damascus,” a Syrian official told Reuters. U.S. officials held security talks in Baghdad this week with Syria’s ally Iran. After a visit to Damascus last month by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syria said explicitly for the first time it supports the Shi’ite-led government in Baghdad.
One delegate said the meeting would focus on ways to control the 360-km (225 mile) border between Syria and Iraq and dismantling alleged Iraqi Baathist networks in Syria. “With all the talk of Syria as a transit route for rebels, it makes sense to hold the meeting here. This is a chance for Damascus to show it can cooperate and talk with U.S. officials. The two sides rarely meet,” the delegate said.
“A mechanism should also emerge for the Iraqis and Syrians to cooperate regularly on controlling the border,” he said. Washington says Syria is allowing fighters and weapons into Iraq. Damascus denies this and says ending instability in Iraq and achieving an “honourable withdrawal” for U.S. forces is in its national interest.
QUID PRO QUO
A diplomat in the Syrian capital said Damascus had kept its policy on Iraq vague in the absence of a U.S. promise to give Syria something in return for its cooperation, such as an easing of American sanctions that were imposed on Syria in 2004, or pressure on Israel to withdraw from the Syrian Golan Heights.
“So far Syria has been playing both hands. It puts out the right statements but does not move substantially on the ground,” the diplomat said. Syria fiercely opposed the American-led invasion of 2003 that removed Saddam Hussein from power and brought sectarian tensions to the surface. It has since hosted an estimated 1.4 million Iraqi refugees who have fled Iraq.
It also hosts a large number of former operatives from Saddam’s security forces whom the U.S.-backed Iraqi government accuses of having links with the rebels.
The Damascus meeting is a follow-up to a conference in Egypt in May in which senior U.S. and Syrian officials met each other for the first time in two years. Another follow-up meeting in Amman dealt with the refugee problem.
Although the Damascus meeting will focus on Iraq’s security concerns, Turkey is expected to raise the issue of Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) rebel separatists who use Iraqi Kurdistan as a base. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki visited Turkey on Tuesday for talks on dealing with the PKK.
kingcrane jr said:
ENLIGHTENED:
You are confusing representative Murr the father (Michel), the opportunist ex-Phalangist who has backed Awn’s candidate after trying to mediate a solution (an independent candidate) between the General and Amine Pierre Gemayel with Murr the son (Elias) who has been pretending to be an “independent” member of the government as Minister of Defense. Never mind the feeble-minded Gaby Murr, brother of Michel, and uncle of Elias, who attacked the Armenian community a bit like a Nazi barking against the German Jews at Krystalnacht. Other members of the family include Myrna Murr, daughter of Michel, who has no liking to politics despite her daddy’s insistence, and May Murr, sister of Michel and Gaby, who has allegedly converted from Greek Antiochian Orthodoxy to Greek Antiochian Catholicism (Melkite); she is a published author, but she has become more famous for her far-right political stance, and admiration (if not more) for Ariel Sharon when she interacted with him in the eighties.
My verdict: sooner or later, Awn (if given the opportunity) will have to stick to his radical reformist agenda and cut his ties with Michel Murr. The current alliance is based on popularity (Michel Awn) for money (Michel Murr), but who knows. Michel Murr has always kept a good relationship with some Phalangists but not with the Lebanese Forces. Back when Awn was in charge (of a divided Lebanon, Selim Hoss being in charge of West Beirut), Geagea purged the Lebanese Forces, and Awn sent in his men (the Army) to prevent the deaths of several Maronites on Geagea’s hit list, to include Elias Murr. This is one of several reasons why, despite Elias Murr’s divorce from Emile Lahoud’s daughter, he is unlikely to ally too obstentiously with the March 14 crowd, particularly Geagea.
Addendum (August 9, 2007) (I was sent this by email)
The comment section of my post on the Metn election results stirred up interesting debate that provides further insight and analysis of the election. I have copied some representative extracts below.
Leb Christian said:
Aoun got plastered with this election. If you look at the figures, in 2005, his candidate reaped 63% of the vote with some 55000 votes, without forming any alliances with the likes of the baath, the SSNP, and Michel el Murr.
In 2007, his candidate barely got 50% of the vote with some 35000 votes, but with forming alliances with Hezballah (2000 votes), Baath, SSNP, Michel el Murr, Tachnag and the naturalized.
This is a huge step back, and evidence that Aoun has lost significant support among Christians. Furthermore, when you count the votes that are not “acquired” by alliances, he has about 20000 votes, so basically 30% of the Christians.
All in all, Aoun won a seat in Parliament, and lost the Presidency, and that’s a trade off many Lebanese including myself were very happy to make.
Gemayel on the other hand, while taking a loss, actually showed that he has the Christian vote. He lost a seat in parliament but emerged as a new Christian leader (as much as I despise him).
In 2005, his candidate got some 35000 votes, and the seat was not really contested. This year, despite the alliances of Aoun facing him, he got the same votes as the Aoun candidate( minus 418).
But that margin is well below the 2000 Shiites that votes for Aoun, and the several thousand naturalized that were paid to vote for Aoun.
So yes, despite my dislike for Gemayel, he managed to end the myth of Aoun being the sole Christian leader, and cornered Aoun.