Lebanon’s municipal elections, held on four weekends in May, highlighted the complex political dynamics in a nation grappling with economic collapse, regional tensions and internal divisions.
The elections, particularly in Shi’ite-majority areas, were dominated by the Hezbollah-Amal alliance, yet the results reveal both the resilience of their power and emerging signs of vulnerability.
Oded Ailam, a researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs and a former head of the Counterterrorism Division in the Mossad, and Jacques Neriah, a Middle East expert also at the JCFA, offer distinct perspectives on these elections.
While both acknowledge Hezbollah’s electoral success, they diverge in their interpretation of its implications, with Ailam emphasizing signs of erosion in Hezbollah’s popular support and Neriah highlighting the terror group’s sustained dominance despite certain challenges.
The elections saw the Hezbollah-Amal alliance secure victories in more than 90% of Shi’ite municipal councils, often unopposed or with overwhelming margins in strongholds such as Nabatieh, Tyre and Baalbek. However, voter turnout was notably low, averaging around 37% in Shi’ite areas and dipping to 28% in Baalbek-Hermel.
Ailam framed the Hezbollah-Amal victory as a hollow one, marked by apathy and subtle signs of collapse. He told JNS that while the alliance secured sweeping victories, the low voter turnout reflects a growing disenchantment among the Shi’ite electorate.
He interpreted this as a sign of psychological erosion, suggesting that Hezbollah’s dominance is less a reflection of enthusiastic support and more a result of fear, resignation and a lack of viable alternatives.
Ailam also pointed to external and internal pressures that are weakening Hezbollah’s grip. Israel’s precise airstrikes, the Lebanese Armed Forces’ increasing assertiveness in Hezbollah strongholds, and a judiciary showing flickers of independence all indicate a shifting landscape.
He also suggested potential fissures within Hezbollah, particularly between hardline “military” factions and more pragmatic political elements, with figures such as Wafiq Safa, sometimes referred to as the organization’s “minister of defense” or “minister of the interior,” playing pivotal roles behind the scenes.
Ailam told JNS he sees these elections as a harbinger of a broader decline, not in organizational strength but in the “spirit of its popular base.” He emphasized the role of emerging reformist voices and a disillusioned populace beginning to “dare to dream of alternatives.”
A lack of electoral competition
Neriah took a more measured view, portraying Hezbollah’s performance as a demonstration of enduring strength, albeit with caveats. He acknowledged the alliance’s overwhelming success in Shi’ite strongholds, particularly in South Lebanon and Baalbek-Hermel. Neriah highlighted Hezbollah’s strategic influence in Beirut, where allied lists won most seats, and viewed the elections as a “promotional event” for the crucial May 2026 legislative elections.
However, Neriah also noted complexities that temper this narrative of dominance. The low voter turnout, while not unique to Shi’ite areas, suggests apathy that points to underlying dissatisfaction. Neriah attributed these challenges to a lack of electoral competition rather than a significant erosion of support, noting that uncontested wins often resulted from opponents withdrawing, possibly under pressure.
Both experts agree on the basic facts: Hezbollah and Amal dominated the elections in Shi’ite areas but the low voter turnout complicates the narrative of success. They also acknowledged the lack of strong opposition as a key factor in the alliance’s dominance, with Ailam noting the absence of “credible, viable alternatives” and Neriah pointing to uncontested wins due to withdrawn candidacies.
Ailam and Neriah’s views diverge over the results and their implications. Ailam adopted a more critical and forward-looking perspective, framing the low turnout and narrow margins in some areas as evidence of a faltering popular base. He emphasized psychological and societal shifts, such as voter apathy and emerging reformist voices, as signs of a potential long-term decline in Hezbollah’s legitimacy. He described Hezbollah as a “fortress” showing “subtle beginnings of collapse.”
Neriah, however, focused on Hezbollah’s organizational strength and strategic successes. He sees the elections as a continuation of Hezbollah’s dominance, with uncontested wins and behind-the-scenes influence in Beirut underscoring their control. While he acknowledged challenges such as low turnout and limited opposition gains, he did not interpret these as existential threats but rather as nuances in an otherwise robust performance.
Ailam suggested Hezbollah’s dominance is unsustainable in the face of mounting internal and external pressures. Focusing on voter psychology and subtle shifts within Hezbollah, Ailam anticipates change, driven by a disillusioned populace and a changing regional landscape.
Neriah, however, believes Hezbollah’s entrenched power structures and strategic acumen ensure its continued dominance, at least in the short term. He told JNS he views the results as a reaffirmation of strength rather than a warning of decline.
The elections highlight the paradox of Hezbollah’s position in Lebanon: a powerful organization with unmatched control over its strongholds, yet one increasingly reliant on fear, inertia and a lack of alternatives to maintain its grip. The low voter turnout, as both experts note, reflects a broader national malaise, exacerbated by Lebanon’s economic collapse and political paralysis. The 2026 election is expected to be a “symbolic crucible” where competing visions for Lebanon—resistance versus reform—will clash.
Ailam suggested that public skepticism is already taking root, with voters siding with the alliance more out of fear than loyalty. Both experts agree that the opposition—fragmented among Sunnis, Maronites and Druze—lacks the cohesion to capitalize on this discontent, leaving Hezbollah’s dominance intact.
Hezbollah’s seeming hesitance to respond to Israel’s airstrikes might reflect a strategic calculus to avoid a devastating war, but it is eroding its image as a “resistance” movement among its base. Meanwhile, the Lebanese state’s tentative assertiveness, such as entering areas formerly controlled by Hezbollah, signals a potential rebalancing of power.
The municipal elections underscore Hezbollah’s enduring dominance but also reveal cracks in its foundation. As Lebanon approaches the critical May 2026 national election, the quiet murmurs of change may yet grow into a louder call for reform.
As Neriah noted, it’s “more of the same” in terms of overall control, but with subtle shifts and underlying currents worth watching.
