The fifth series of parliamentary elections held in Lebanon’s Second Republic since its birth in 1989 were in some respects the most dominated by Saudi Arabia. Vote-buying was perhaps more rampant than ever before. In order to influence the election result, Saudi Arabia directly addressed the citizens of Lebanon by buying votes in support of the election of Saad Hariri and his allies. For the average voter that meant $800 or so in exchange for a vote — not to mention the dignity, free speech and political rights that were also taken.

Leader of the March 14 coalition Saad al-Hariri speaks to journalists after casting his vote outside a polling station in Beirut June 7, 2009. REUTERS/Jamal Saidi

Al Nahar, a Lebanese newspaper, reported that some 19,000 expatriates were flown into Beirut last month to take part in the voting. It appears that there was a concerted effort by Saudi Arabia to affect the outcome of the Lebanese vote.
Ironically, though, these backhanded techniques are also a testament to how far democracy has come in Lebanon. In earlier decades, just a few big backroom deals behind closed doors might have done the job.

Despite all the noise and the fired up speeches about Iran and Syria interfering in Lebanese politics, the March 14 camp won. All the hype about the “new Hizbullah government” was disinformation. Hizbullah participation in the cabinet was only token; it was only running 11 MPs out of 128 total seats. It was a symbolic but not a real participation. The battle was fought by Hizbullah’s allies: the secular Shi’a party Amal, the Christian party FPM, the Christian party Marada, the Armenian party Tachnaq, and others.

Should they have won, the March 8 group had offered previously to set up a coalition government similar to that in place for the past year. This should not be surprising since Hizbullah has been trying to lower its profile in advance of the vote to avoid provoking a negative reaction. Also, Hizbullah leaders understand the sensitivities and how loaded all of this is. They’re not interested in formal levers of power and want to continue to exert influence from behind the scenes.

The very concept of a “Hizbullah win” was a fantasy, a self-serving paradigm chosen by Israel out of an unconscious desire that this may happen — that once again, Israel can indiscriminately kill, destroy, and feel good about it. The problem with the election was that Israel legitimized Hizbullah first by invading Lebanon in 2006, second by losing the battle in 2006, and third, by the spy rings that the government has dismantled with Hizbullah’s help. Therefore, what was originally a militia garnering slim to none local support was now recognized as a legitimate political and military entity that defends Lebanon successfully from the “invaders who oppress our neighbors.” Had Israel not invaded in 2006, or blown up civilian neighborhoods, this election wouldn’t have been a tough race for the pro-Western government.

Israel has no more valuable information to add to its previous intelligence reports after its network of spies in Lebanon got busted. This means one thing for Israel: It will have to fight the next war with a blackened eye. Losing the previous war with two wide-open eyes is not a good indication for round two with Hizbullah.

Just because Hizbullah is backed by Iran it didn’t mean that they would have followed in their steps if they had won the elections. In fact, if Hizbullah had won, it would have become a state actor, and that brings added responsibility. As for the election giving Hassan Nasrallah a mandate, I don’t think Nasrallah needs one.

Everyone talked about Iran’s control over Lebanon if Hizbullah had won but are we blind to see that Saad Hariri is a Saudi national? His money is from Saudi Arabia? And that Lebanon will now become an extremist Sunni-Wahabi state (just like how he and his proxies wanted to turn north Lebanon to a Wahabi kingdom in 2007).

The people of Lebanon have, for decades on decades, tasted the bitter fruit of collaboration with the Zionist empire. Now, it seems, they finally elected a government with the pretense of “Wahabism.” The Lebanon we love might just have become a Wahabi state.

Unfortunately, in all likelihood, March 14 and its Wahabi allies will further fuel the fire of instability in a region that is quickly polarizing between a moderate bloc that hopes for peaceful coexistence with the West, and an extremist bloc consisting of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Al Qaeda.

Those who want to drive Lebanon into the darkness of their ideologies are underestimating the fact that a people who have enjoyed freedom will never go back to the caves of servitude. March 14 might be fooling some Lebanese into believing that it does not want what it really wants, but once it tries to execute its “Saudi plan” the Lebanese will for sure revolt and win.

It doesn’t matter if I like the result personally or nationally. Any negative foreign involvement or financial or political sanction of Lebanese people might solve the immediate short term strategic problem but will definitely sow the seeds of long time conflict and distrust. President Obama is correct in his assessment that democracy requires not only fairly elected governments but also governments that uphold the democratic principles once in power. Irrespective of who won the election, it is extremely important that the party which comes to power fairly represents all the people in Lebanon.

Jamal Bittar is professor of interdisciplinary studies at the University of Toledo in Ohio.