Political gridlock is often the result of brutal polarization, ineptitude, or a combination of both. Those following Lebanon understand this reality more than most, especially following the Lebanese parliament’s failure to elect a president for the twelfth time since former President Michel Aoun vacated the post at the end of his term in October 2022. The vote, held on June 14, further illuminates in stark terms the small Mediterranean country’s ongoing political nightmare—one that will prove critical to resolving in the near term amidst what can reasonably be described as a fairly modest step forward in the recent vote.

While a “modest step forward” should be expressed with a particularly grainy piece of salt, the advancement of former finance minister and current senior International Monetary Fund official Jihad Azour as a counterweight to the Hezbollah and Amal-backed Suleiman Frangieh marks a crucial moment in the search for a new Lebanese president. The vote resulted in fifty-nine votes for Azour and fifty-one for Frangieh. The remaining votes included blank ballots, protest votes, or votes for smaller candidates such as General Joseph Aoun and Ziad Baroud, ultimately operating as spoilers to any 65-vote threshold required for a second-round victory.

Still, the outcome is significant, even if it did not produce a new president. Azour enjoys the unique and surprising support of every major Lebanese Christian party—a notoriously fractured voting bloc that includes notable heavy-hitters like the anti-Hezbollah Lebanese Forces, the formerly Hezbollah-aligned Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), and the newly pro-reform Kataeb party. These stakeholders, alongside many of the independent members of parliament (MPs) and some smaller parties, form the backbone of Azour’s leading vote total in the parliamentary session. As a result of the final count, the pro-Frangieh camp’s walkout broke the quorum and close the session after the vote.

Kataeb leader Samy Gemayel described the session and walkout in stark terms, arguing “What happened today was a real uprising of Lebanese MPs… who said no to diktats and threats.” He added, “Today it was obvious that those who ran out of parliament after the first round are those who lost.” Unsurprisingly, the Hezbollah/Amal camp aimed to frame the session as a victory for their bloc, with Amal MP Ali Hassan Khalil claiming “any kind of imposition of a candidate on us will not achieve any results. Dialogue is the only way to elect a president. We have emerged politically victorious.”

It should not be lost on any observers that neither bloc will allow a second-round vote or admit they are aiming to dictate the outcome of the presidency on their own terms. Frangieh is a non-starter for the Christian parties, and unrealistic without FPM support. At present, FPM chief Gebran Bassil does not support Frangieh’s candidacy, and his party will mostly follow his lead in this regard. That being said, Bassil has made clear that support for Azour is not entrenched, just as other Christian leaders continue to re-iterate their differences with FPM while citing a “convergence” around the presidency at this time.

Thus, the Christian parties are trying their hand at particularly bold political gamesmanship. The bloc surrounding Azour—and especially FPM—likely view his candidacy as a mechanism for forcing genuine negotiations around a true consensus candidate for the presidency. Bassil gave an interview shortly after endorsing Azour that confirms his thinking in this regard, expressing that “if we are invited to an election session, we can vote for [Azour]. But will this make him president? If the other side does not agree on him, unfortunately, no.” He went on to say that “we should keep having intensive talks to reach a consensus.”

One can be excused for viewing Bassi’s comments as altruistic. The senior politician and former FPM golden boy was once believed to be a shoo-in for the presidency, widely thought to be Aoun’s natural successor given FPM’s political strength before the recent parliamentary elections. Rather, a long career of energy-sector corruption and sanctions, alongside a close and potentially harmful Hezbollah alliance, caught up with him. He is widely regarded as one of the most hated politicians in Lebanon today.

Regardless, Bassil understands the political game being played. He likely expected Hezbollah to support his nomination upon Aoun’s departure—something that was simply never going to happen given the sanctions issue. Rather than risk a political liability in Bassil, Hezbollah opted for what they believe is a less controversial candidate in Frangieh. This ultimately pushed Bassil away, broadening a rift in the alliance that had been developing since last year—largely over the role of the cabinet and government without a presidency.

Bassil could still be aiming for the presidency in his recent moves, although this approach is likely folly for the reasons already stated. Still, his call for talks and signals to the Hezbollah camp expressing his flexibility is probably not lost on the Lebanese armed group. Ultimately, Bassil’s rhetoric is up to interpretation at present—whether he is still gunning for the presidency or trying to play dealmaker to clean up his image with the Lebanese populace and international community remains to be seen.

Ultimately, the makeup of Lebanon’s political system makes it nearly impossible for one political bloc to impose a candidate. This requires true dialogue that either bridges the divide between the two core political blocs or manages to pull in the necessary spoilers needed to reach sixty-five votes, although the latter option fails to address the quorum issue. This dynamic is unlikely to be resolved soon and will probably and unfortunately require international influence to resolve.

Whether or not new regional dynamics play a role here remains to be seen. The French play a major role here, and the Saudi crown prince’s visit to Paris on June 16 included talks on Beirut and calls to resolve the presidential impasse. Additionally, the Iran-Saudi Arabia deal brokered by China is thought to be an opportunity for resolving Beirut’s political impasse. Yet while this is certainly a reasonable analysis of the situation, the deal has yet to foster any noticeable progress in Lebanon today, especially relative to Syria and, to a lesser extent, Yemen. Still, Tehran and Riyadh likely did discuss Lebanon’s political troubles in great detail during the Saudi foreign minister’s historic visit to Iran on June 17.

Should the historic rivals truly hope to expand on their historic deal, all roads could lead to Beirut. But no one should count their bets on this outcome yet, leaving Lebanon and the Lebanese stuck in their ongoing political stalemate for the foreseeable future, even after some consolidation around two core candidates that constitute a small advancement in 2023.

Alexander Langlois is a foreign policy analyst focused on the Middle East and North Africa. He holds an M.A. in International Affairs from American University’s School of International Service. Follow him at @langloisajl.

Image: Shutterstock.