History repeating itself

The Lebanese elections in 2009 has used the same electoral law as in the 1960s, relying on confessional representation according to the place of birth. So why don't we look at some analysis from the 1960s regarding the election conducted in 1964.

Here is what Michael Suleiman wrote Elections in a Confessional Democracy (Elections in a Confessional Democracy, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 29, No. 1, (Feb., 1967), pp. 109-128):

"...the electoral process in Lebanon indicates certain trends which show that the system is capable of limited, self-induced, structural modernization. These trends constitute a significant increase in voter participation, a gradual broadening of the recruitment process and an increasing competitiveness in parliamentary election contests.

These trends may not be very significant unless combined with sociopolitical and administrative attributes of a "modern" or "developed" political system. Confessionalism can hardly be considered to constitute such an attribute.

The special brand of democracy which operates in Lebanon places certain limitations upon the electoral process-limitations which no amount of administrative and/or educational and economic reforms can counteract.

...in the absence of widespread political parties and because of the persistence of “zu'ama", feudalism continues to be the outcome. Thus, where a za'im is well-entrenched and can deliver sufficient votes in his district, he may and does pick and choose whom to have on his list and for what price. An important price often paid is political subservience in parliament once elected.

As the electoral fight is between the members of each sect, the Lebanese confessional system not only strengthens heterogeneity and sectarian divisiveness but further subdivides each sect into rival clans. And the electoral lists are usually no more than a coalition of clans from the various sects to be represented.

In other words, an alliance of confessionalism and feudality cripples the Lebanese electoral process. Furthermore, as there is no effective limitation on campaign expenditure and since the candidature fee is high ($1000 which is forfeited unless the candidate receives 25 per cent of the vote in his district), only the well-to-do can afford to run and the rich candidates are favored. No change in this situation was evident in 1964."

Well in 2009 no change was evident too...