CIVICUS discusses Lebanon’s postponed parliamentary election with Dayana El Baba, Executive Director of the Lebanese Association for Democratic Elections (LADE), a secular civil society organisation that monitors elections and advocates for electoral reform.

Lebanon postponed its parliamentary election after Israel launched its latest war on the country, making a safe and credible vote impossible. The question now is whether a delay forced by emergency can be kept short and used to fix a long-broken electoral system, or whether it will become one more excuse to put democracy on hold.

Why does Lebanon repeatedly postpone elections, and what changed with the war?

Lebanon has a long history of failing to respect the regularity of elections, with political pretexts often used to postpone constitutional deadlines. This has weakened democratic accountability and allowed political forces to avoid regularly returning to the ballot box. Even before the outbreak of the Israeli war on Lebanon, discussions and rumours about the possibility of postponing the parliamentary election were already circulating. LADE clearly opposed such attempts, based on its belief that holding regular elections is a fundamental pillar of any democratic system.

However, the outbreak of the war and the accompanying military escalation and widespread destruction have radically changed the situation. It became practically impossible to hold a parliamentary election under the prevailing humanitarian and security conditions. The bombardment has resulted in hundreds of casualties and the displacement of large numbers of people, while exercising the freedom of movement has become dangerous. At the same time, state institutions have come under severe pressure and suffered partial collapse, including damage to schools that are usually used as polling stations, as well as a significant decline in the ability of the Ministry of Interior and Municipalities to organise the electoral process properly.

In this context, LADE believes that the current exceptional circumstances fall under a force majeure situation that may justify a limited and temporary postponement of the election in order to guarantee the safety of voters, candidates, and election workers, while preserving the minimum conditions necessary to conduct free and fair elections.

At the same time, however, LADE stresses that any postponement must remain strictly limited to the duration imposed by the exceptional circumstances and should not turn into a long-term extension that entrenches the suspension of democratic life. Accordingly, the association opposed the decision issued by parliament during its 9 March session to extend its mandate for two years and postpone the parliamentary election until May 2028, considering this extension unjustified and inconsistent with the principles of necessity and exceptionality.

LADE notes that the Lebanese Constitutional Council has repeatedly affirmed in its jurisprudence that the periodicity of elections holds fundamental constitutional value, and that any postponement must be limited in time and directly linked to the continuation of exceptional circumstances, with an election to be held immediately once these conditions cease.

LADE regrets the absence of a serious and transparent debate regarding possible alternatives and the appropriate duration of the postponement, despite several proposals that were presented by different parliamentary blocs prior to the extension session.

In parallel, LADE emphasises that as well as disrupting the electoral process, the war has deepened social and sectarian divisions, creating major challenges for the future of democracy and stability in Lebanon. Accordingly, LADE continues to confront divisive rhetoric, hate speech and sectarian incitement, based on its conviction that protecting civil peace and preserving the democratic path remain urgent national responsibilities, even under the most difficult circumstances.

Why did parliament opt for such a long extension?

Parliament rejected options ranging from two months to a year and instead opted for a two-year extension. LADE opposed this decision. Shorter extensions would have forced parliament to repeatedly reassess the situation, thereby maintaining pressure on the electoral timeline and requiring realistic planning. By contrast, a two-year extension effectively grants parliament a blank cheque without oversight and without pressure to prepare for a genuine return to democratic life.

Any extension should have been conditional upon a mandatory commitment that parliament use this period to comprehensively reform the electoral law. Instead, parliament postponed the election without committing to the legislative reforms required for democracy. Since March, parliament has taken no meaningful steps towards electoral reform. This is unacceptable. Postponement cannot be treated as a break from democratic responsibility. Rather, it should be used as an opportunity to reform a dysfunctional system.

We have made it clear that we accept postponement as a response to exceptional circumstances, but indefinite delays and legislative inaction are unacceptable. Once the ceasefire becomes permanent, parliament must move forward with comprehensive electoral reform. Civil society and democratic movements will not accept further delays.

What are the key flaws in Lebanon’s electoral law?

Lebanon’s electoral law contains numerous structural flaws that negatively affect the fairness of the electoral process and citizens’ representation. One of the most problematic issues concerns the seats allocated to non-resident Lebanese voters. LADE has repeatedly called for the abolition of these provisions, emphasising that guaranteeing the voting rights of Lebanese people abroad should be approached from a constitutional and rights-based perspective, rather than through political bargaining and compromises.

Based on the principle of equality among citizens, LADE believes that limiting non-resident Lebanese representation to only six parliamentary seats marginalises their political role, reduces their electoral influence in their original districts according to their civil registry records, and deprives them of the full right to choose among candidates and electoral lists on an equal footing with resident voters.

The current law does not clearly define the geographical divisions used to distribute voters abroad, and it does not establish the criteria necessary for drawing these divisions. This stems from the difficulty of adopting objective standards for allocating the six seats across different continents in terms of sectarian balance and voter numbers. The Ministry of Interior and Municipalities has openly stated that it cannot implement this provision due to the ambiguity of the legal text.

The law also suffers from a clear failure to ensure fair representation for different groups. Although women constitute over 51 per cent of registered voters, they occupy only eight out of 128 parliamentary seats, which is around six per cent. Young people, people with disabilities and other excluded groups also lack meaningful political representation.

Among other major flaws are weak regulation of campaign financing, the lack of effective media oversight, the absence of clear standards for defining electoral districts, and the preferential vote system, which reinforces political and sectarian clientelism.

At the media level, the cost of a single television advertisement ranges between US$20,000 and US$50,000. This allows wealthy candidates and parties to dominate the electoral landscape, while independent or less financially privileged candidates are unable to compete, regardless of their qualifications or level of public support.

There is also an urgent need to adopt the Mega Center system, which would facilitate voter participation by allowing people to vote where they live rather than forcing them to travel to their hometowns or villages of registration. Such a system would reduce the financial and logistical burdens on voters, limit political pressure and clientelist practices linked to voter transportation, and increase participation rates, particularly among young people and voters living far from their registered districts.

There is a pressing need to strengthen the independence and powers of the Supervisory Commission for Elections and enable it to effectively fulfil its oversight role, particularly regarding campaign finance monitoring, media regulation and the enforcement of sanctions against violations. The Commission’s limited financial and human resources and its restricted powers significantly undermine its ability to guarantee free and transparent elections. The Commission should be provided with sufficient resources, and its administrative and financial independence from political interference should be enhanced.

Under these conditions, political money and bribery become key factors that shape election outcomes, undermining equal opportunities and limiting the possibility of achieving fair and genuine representation. There is an urgent need for comprehensive legislative reform that addresses all these loopholes simultaneously, including the mechanism for expatriate representation, women’s quotas, youth representation, accessibility for people with disabilities, strict campaign finance regulations, media oversight, adoption of the Mega Center system and stronger accountability and oversight mechanisms through the Supervisory Commission for Elections. These reforms are essential preconditions for democracy and can no longer be postponed.

What broader transformation does Lebanon need?

The fundamental challenge today lies in rebuilding Lebanese state institutions on the basis of citizenship, efficiency and justice, in a way that ensures their ability to serve all citizens equally, regardless of political or sectarian affiliation. Lebanon needs strong and effective institutions capable of restoring trust between society and state, unifying divided communities, preventing renewed violence and guaranteeing the peaceful transfer of power through democratic and credible elections.

Political and sectarian divisions in Lebanon were already severe before the war, but the conflict has further deepened these divisions and increased institutional fragility. As well as electoral reform, a broader process of institutional reconstruction and the strengthening of accountability and transparency mechanisms that prevent any group monopolising power and reinforce the rule of law and state institutions are needed.

Despite the scale of tragedy and suffering Lebanon has endured, LADE continues to believe in the determination and resilience of Lebanese people to overcome this crisis. Lebanese people remain deeply attached to life and aspire to restore stability and return to normality, with the hope that this war will be the last one Lebanon experiences.

Once the war ends, a central challenge will be insisting on genuine electoral and political reforms rather than settling for symbolic elections under a deeply flawed electoral law. Lebanese civil society will continue working to advance comprehensive democratic reforms, while international support for rebuilding institutions and strengthening the democratic process will remain essential to securing a more stable and just future for Lebanon.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.