The most interesting observation made by political analysts about the recent partial elections in Lebanon is the very low turnout in which nearly 80% of eligible voters actually boycotted the poll. And this was in spite of heavy popular and partisan mobilizations by competing parties and the big brouhaha that accompanied the elections, giving it a far greater bang that it deserved. This almost complete boycott in fact reflected the prevailing state of despair, disgust, and lack of confidence among the Lebanese people.
At the individual level, one candidate won and another lost. At the national level, both have failed in our opinion, and the winner this time is the massive block of boycotting voters who were keen to realize, both intuitively and from experience, the fallacy of this big lie called elections. They've sporadically experienced it in the past, enough to add to their disgust and despair, and so they decided this time to stay away from the dull ballot boxes that no longer attract them because they have lost every last bit of the meaning of genuine democracy.
The largest voters also were those who, by boycotting, expressed in the best way possible their anger against this whorish State and its delinquent institutions and corrupt political system.
The wiser voters were those who boycotted again and again, and who transcended sectarian grudges and religious instinct that dominated the elections by staying home. In so doing, they took the stance of negative neutrality towards this ongoing masquerade, which they know will not lead them to any positive or tangible outcome in the reality on the ground.
The biggest loser was the Taef regime, which miserably failed to bring people into its fold. In contrast, it greatly succeeded in further alienating people and widening the big divide that already exists between it and the people.
It is actually better for the opposition candidate to have failed because his entry into the game would have imposed on the opposition negative repercussions, the least of which would be the recognition of the legitimacy of Taef. In addition, his mingling with this chorus of mercenaries and traitors won't change anything to an environment that is rife with hegemony, oppression, and political piracy. It would not have made a single dent in the prevailing Syrian equation.
It is in fact good that the other candidate won because his victory demonstrated better than ever the ugly face of political feudalism that is deeply rooted in the ruling establishment and which is inherited from father to son as if we still lived in the Middle Ages.
The silent – indeed the angry – majority did well to be absent from this distraction that the Taef team wanted to certify its false legitimacy, and which the opponents wanted to confirm their existence and show the strength of their electoral representative base and no more.
And as we join our voice to the chorus of the shouting majority, we ask: Is there any reasonable or free or honorable individual in the whole world who agrees with the principle of elections under occupation and hegemony? Has there ever been in history a lie of this magnitude and flagrancy?… It is truly the culture of fraud that has become a commodity in this forsaken country called Lebanon!!!
September 20, 2003