Every round of parliamentary elections in Lebanon has had its distinguishing characteristic and political function, from the elections of the mandate period, through the post-independence period, to the elections of summer 1992. The mandate period elections were, in practice, the elections of the French High Commissioner. The 1943 electoral round divided the transitional period of the mandate from the independence era. During the administration of President Bishara al-Khuri, the famous "25 May" elections of 1947 were held, followed by the 1951 elections, known as the "Sultan Salim" round, after the president's well-known brother. The presidency of Camille Chamoun began with the "White Revolution" elections of 1953, and ended with the "Revolution" round of elections that was tailor-made to fit the incumbent president, a year before the "1958 Revolution." Elections during the Chehab era belonged to the "Deuxiemme Bureau" in 1960 and 1964, according to opponents of Chehabism who ran against this regime's policies in the "Alliance" elections of 1968.

The last pre-civil war round of elections, in 1972, were relatively speaking, among Lebanon's fairest since independence. Perhaps this round's primary distinction was that it elected the "war parliament," during peacetime. It was this parliament that elected five presidents of the republic, and none of these elections took place in the official hall of parliament. This parliament lived with the war's various phases, the vicissitudes of its actors, and its conflicting aims, until parliament's term finally came to an end. The "new" became more politically advantageous than remaining with the "old," even if the old was "corrected" by appointment. The mystery lies in the timing of parliament's departure, the organizing of its final moments, and these final moments' ramifications, which were important both at the level of society, and state. Perhaps the 1992 round's primary characteristic is that it dealt with the issue of the relationship between state and society, and between the state and the voter, and the boycotter and the opposition, in addition to the relationship between the authorities and their decision-making abilities. This is what provides the 1992 elections with their special characteristic, distinguishing them from previous rounds.

Whether they are measured by any local (such as past elections) or regional criterion, the 1992 elections were the source of differences and divisions which previous post-independence elections had never brought about. There is no doubt that past rounds were not free of differences that always reflected sectarian and political divisions in their various dimensions. The timing of an electoral round, however, had never before constituted the source of a dispute; holding or postponing elections had not been an issue when there were favorable political conditions for them to take place. This is not attributable to the fact that Lebanon never had a free election before 1992, or that the country faced the democratic experiment as it never had before, after a period of authoritarian rule. Rather, it was the case that Lebanon's tenth parliament (since 1943, and the fourteenth since the constitution of 1926) was accompanied by a high degree of sectarian polarization the like of which the country had only seen during periods of crisis. This situation, in its turn, precipitated a sharp political crisis.

The problem does not lie in the election results, as much as it does in the preparation for the round, from the election law and its resulting disputes and contradictions to the election's timing. The importance and uniqueness of the 1992 round is that it was connected to the electoral politics that preceded the voting more than it was to the results, and the resulting make-up of parliament. In reality, the 1992 round stood out from previous rounds because, practically speaking, it constituted two elections: one which was concluded prior to election day, through the passing of the new electoral law, tailor-made for the influential candidates and for forming electoral lists, and the other which took place on election day. Although the two parts complemented one another, electoral developments prior to election day had a direct impact on the results following the voting. This had not been apparent in prior elections, in form and content, as was the case in the elections of 1992.

Among the noteworthy and unaccustomed-to differences that tarnished the 1992 round was the government's strong insistence on holding elections, ignoring both the opposition and calls for postponement by the principal political and religious leaders, while the majority of people were either unconcerned with or opposed to the matter (1). This departure from custom--the state insistent on holding elections and the people either opposed, or unenthusiastic--was to a great extent the 1992 round's most prominent feature.

If the 1972 elections, the last round prior to the outbreak of war in 1975, recorded the highest levels of freedom, true representation, and real competition in comparison with previous rounds (2), then the 1992 elections came as a reversal, on all levels. In the end they reflected only some of the internal transformations which swept the country during the previous two decades. The principal reason was that they were held during conditions lacking a minimum amount of national consensus.

The main issue which characterized these electoral conditions, both before and after the elections, was centered around the parties and leaders who opposed holding elections as scheduled more than it was around the customary political competition between the government and the opposition, as is usually the case in democratic political systems. How can one account for this deviation, especially after the Lebanese people were deprived of the right to vote over two decades? In addition, how can one explain the lack of interest and enthusiasm by some and the vehement opposition by others, while in other non-democratic countries, people long for the chance to choose their representatives freely (at least at the parliamentary level), if they are unable to choose their representatives in the state and its institutions?

The many reasons for this lie in political stances and directions which reveal the deep political crisis aggravated by the elections. We will turn our attention to these issues, as we evaluate, in the first part of the discussion, the position of the 1992 elections, within the widest possible consideration of the decision-making process in Lebanon, both before and after the Taif Agreement. In the second section, we will attempt to explain the nature of electoral policy and analyze its results, and throw light on the formation of parliament, and the political and social background of the new parliamentary elite. In the third section, we will draw some general conclusions about the electoral process, in its various phases.