By Mohamad Hammoud
The United States has long presented itself as a global defender of democracy while quietly undermining electoral outcomes that threaten its strategic priorities.
This practice predates any single administration and has shaped US conduct abroad for decades. Under Donald Trump, however, it reached a new level of audacity. Trump demonstrated a personal disregard for unfavorable democratic outcomes at home. This was most evident in 2020, when his refusal to accept the election results and his willingness to entertain a potential civil conflict revealed his extreme view of power. As president, Trump has also acted more aggressively than his predecessors toward foreign democracies that produce outcomes contrary to US interests.
This extends beyond domestic policy. According to the Associated Press, Trump threatened to cut Iraq’s aid if parliament chose Nouri Al-Maliki, seen as pro-Iran. The warning was clear: Iraq’s democratic process was valid only if it produced leaders approved by Washington. Using financial threats to punish a sovereign electoral choice, the United States turned democracy into a conditional privilege.
Strategic Imbalance in the Lebanese Electoral Map
Lebanon demonstrates how Western powers preserve dysfunctional political systems to block unified nationalist movements. Lebanon’s population is smaller than that of New York City- approximately 8.5 million residents- yet both societies are religiously and culturally diverse. In New York, political candidates must build broad, cross-community coalitions to win office.
Lebanon, by contrast, with roughly half of New York City’s population, is divided into electoral districts dominated by single sects. Rather than advancing a shared national agenda, politicians are rewarded for mobilizing narrow communal bases. This structure entrenches sectarian identity in a country that has already endured a devastating civil war and remains perpetually vulnerable to renewed internal conflict.
According to Reuters, Lebanon’s electoral framework is further distorted by district boundaries that allow a few thousand voters in certain sectarian enclaves to elect representatives with the same parliamentary weight as districts containing tens of thousands. The result is a system that anchors political power in religious affiliation rather than a unified national mandate. Unlike a New York City mayor- who must secure support across ethnic, religious, and economic lines- Lebanese politicians gain power by reinforcing sectarian loyalty to satisfy rigid sub-district quotas.
Political analysts argue that the West’s refusal to advocate for a secular, “one person, one vote” system in Lebanon reflects a deeper anxiety. A genuinely representative government would likely prioritize domestic sovereignty over external demands. Were Lebanon to adopt a streamlined electoral model similar to those used in American cities, the resulting political realignment could empower forces openly hostile to “Israeli” interests. The persistence of a fractured system, therefore, is not a failure of reform but a deliberate choice that keeps the Lebanese state weak and dependent.
Punishment for Disfavored Democratic Outcomes
The selective recognition of democracy is most evident in the Western response to the 2006 Palestinian elections. When Hamas secured a decisive legislative victory in a process deemed free and fair by international observers, the United States and the European Union imposed a sweeping economic embargo. Democratic credentials were rendered irrelevant once the outcome challenged Western preferences. When the “wrong” candidates win, democratic rhetoric is swiftly replaced by sanctions, isolation, and coercion.
Democracy as a Managed Illusion
The long-term consequences of these systems are visible in Lebanon’s social fabric. According to Human Rights Watch, the country’s legal framework pushes citizens to seek protection from religious leaders rather than the state, ensuring that nationality remains secondary to sectarian affiliation. This arrangement prevents the emergence of a unified civic identity, leaving the population fragmented, politically dependent, and vulnerable to external pressure.
In Washington’s strategic calculus, this fragility is not a liability but an asset. A weak democracy that can be managed is less threatening than a cohesive one that asserts independence. Continued international support for these distorted systems exposes the reality behind Western democracy promotion: a hollowed-out model that preserves procedural form while emptying substance.
As long as elections abroad are treated as legitimate only when approved by Western power centers, democracy will remain an instrument of control rather than a pathway to self-determination. The language may invoke liberty, but the practice reflects something far more deliberate- power preserved through pretense.
