BEIRUT – Lebanon’s Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s cabinet has postponed a decision on electoral law reforms until Thursday, awaiting the report of the ministerial committee tasked with considering the amendments.
What is happening in Lebanon goes far beyond debates over electoral laws and foreign voting.
Although this delay appears to be procedural, it masks a deeper political struggle. Lebanese Forces (LF) leader Samir Geagea is seeking to use timing and diaspora votes to strengthen his position as his domestic and regional standing declines.
Thursday’s committee report will play a pivotal role in determining whether the 16th electoral district for foreigners will be abolished or changed. Its conclusion could strengthen Geagia’s influence among diaspora voters or weaken the party’s political clout, making the committee a key pawn in a broader fight over the future of Lebanon’s parliament and presidency.
District 16: Electoral innovations under discussion
Lebanon’s 2017 electoral law divides the country into 15 electoral districts, with 122 of the 128 seats elected proportionally. District 16 is an exceptional district created for Lebanese expatriates. It is made up of six seats: Maronite, Orthodox, Catholic, Sunni, Shiite, and Druze, each representing a different continent: Africa, Europe, Asia, North America, South America, and Oceania.
The district was intended to strengthen ties between Lebanon and its diaspora, but was postponed twice due to political and logistical disagreements.
Opponents say it gives foreigners disproportionate influence. Supporters see it as a symbolic step toward multinational citizenship.
The commission’s report to be submitted on Thursday will decide whether to abolish constituencies or integrate foreign votes with domestic votes.
Expats, frozen funds, political contradictions
The debate also touches on the serious financial and ethical issues of not getting back the funds of depositors, most of whom are Lebanese abroad, the same expatriates who are now demanding the right to vote. Many feel that their votes are being treated as electoral tools, while their looted savings remain locked up in banks protected by authorities purporting to represent them.
This is an obvious contradiction. Meanwhile, foreign votes are being used to outwit Chairman Navi Berri and limit Hezbollah’s influence. On the other hand, no solution is provided to recover the savings.
This exposes the contradictions in Geagia’s rhetoric, which claims to be a champion of the diaspora but remains silent about those responsible for the financial crisis, some of whom are his political and banking allies.
Another important aspect is inequality among expatriates themselves. Many voters abroad, particularly in Persian Gulf Arab states, are afraid to vote for fear of persecution or loss of jobs if they are found to support the resistance.
Berri is aware of this and explains that he is opposed to expanding foreign voting in such a biased environment. In contrast, diaspora communities in Western Europe and the Persian Gulf tend to oppose resistance, so Geagia benefits from this imbalance.
A race against time and the postponed presidential inauguration
Thursday’s committee report is part of a longer-term strategic calculation. The delay in deciding the election has given Mr. Geagia time to rebuild his image and expand his influence in the upcoming presidential election. Although he frames his opposition as defending democratic rights, the underlying goal is tactical: to freeze legal proceedings until a favorable local settlement is reached.
The irony is profound. The LF, which supported the 2022 law, is now demanding its amendments, citing a change in political power. Overseas votes, historically favorable to the LF, are now at risk. The committee process allows Geagea to control timing and outcomes.
Meanwhile, Lebanese elites are prioritizing political maneuvering over the urgent needs of the people. Ministers discuss foreign voting as the nation faces economic collapse, currency instability and power shortages. The commission’s report is more than just a technicality; it will set the tone for future election cycles and the balance of power among local and regional stakeholders.
Ultimately, the District 16 controversy reflects Lebanon’s larger crisis. It is a fragile democracy manipulated by elite ambitions, diaspora influences, and external pressures, with procedural committees functioning as battlegrounds for political survival rather than instruments of governance.