Why does parliament still vote by hand?

Calls to modernize Lebanon’s parliamentary voting system have resurfaced repeatedly, yet the country’s legislature continues to rely on a traditional method of voting that many consider outdated, opaque, and vulnerable to procedural irregularities. Although proposals to introduce electronic voting date back to 2004, successive legislative initiatives have failed to translate into reform despite the existence of the necessary technical infrastructure within Parliament.

The debate has therefore evolved beyond a technical discussion into a broader political question about institutional reform and democratic accountability.

Electronic voting as a pillar of legislative integrity

Speaking to The Beiruter, Lebanese Member of Parliament (MP) and member of the Strong Republic bloc Razi El Hage considers parliamentary voting to be one of the most fundamental pillars of legislative integrity. He stressed that the issue extends well beyond administrative modernization and directly concerns democratic accountability.

Voting in Parliament is one of the most fundamental matters related to the integrity of the legislative process.

El Hage said “it is also essential for ensuring that the public knows how MPs vote, so that citizens remain informed and are able to hold MPs accountable for the mandate entrusted to them every 4 years.”

According to El Hage, the constitutional provisions governing parliamentary voting were drafted long before modern digital technologies existed. At the time, legislators naturally relied on the voting methods available, including oral voting, standing and sitting, or roll-call procedures. “Of course, when the Constitution was drafted, there was no such thing as electronic voting, nor was there modern technology in the first place,” he explained. “That is why, at the time, the legislator stipulated that voting should take place either by a show of hands or by roll-call.”

Nevertheless, El Hage argues that technological progress should not prevent Parliament from adopting more transparent procedures today. In fact, he noted that the parliamentary chamber already possesses the necessary infrastructure to conduct electronic voting. “If you look at the parliamentary chamber, where the microphones are installed, there is already the technical capability for each MP to cast a vote electronically,” he said.

The system exists, but it has been disabled.

Overcoming political and constitutional obstacles

Addressing one of the principal objections raised against the reform, El Hage acknowledged that some lawmakers argue constitutional amendments are necessary before electronic voting can be introduced. However, he dismissed this as an insurmountable obstacle, stressing that Parliament has already received several legislative proposals aimed at enabling the reform.

“The main argument put forward by some against adopting electronic voting is that it would require a constitutional amendment,” he stated. “Well, such an amendment is not difficult. We can work on it. More than one bill has already been introduced. We ourselves have submitted a draft law, and several other parliamentary blocs have also submitted draft laws to amend the Constitution in order to allow for electronic voting.”

Beyond the legal debate, El Hage believes the reform would significantly enhance the credibility of parliamentary proceedings by replacing estimation with precision and making every vote publicly traceable. “First, it would put an end to what has become known as Speaker Nabih Berri’s practice of estimating the outcome of votes,” he said. El Hage also added that “it would ensure an accurate voting process, allowing each MP to know exactly what they voted for and how they voted, while enabling the public to know how every MP cast their vote.”

A reform proposed more than 20 years ago

The campaign to introduce electronic voting in the Lebanese Parliament is far from new. The first legislative proposal was submitted in 2004 by former MP Ghassan Moukheiber, who renewed the initiative again in 2006. Several years later, in September 2011, then-MP Sami Gemayel introduced a proposal to amend Article 81 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, making electronic voting mandatory during the article-by-article examination of draft laws as well as during final votes.

Recognizing that constitutional objections might arise, Gemayel submitted another proposal in August 2012 to amend Article 36 of the Lebanese Constitution. A decade later, in February 2022, the Strong Lebanon parliamentary bloc introduced an expedited proposal to amend several articles of Parliament’s internal regulations governing voting procedures, replacing hand-raising and roll-call votes with electronic voting.

Despite these repeated legislative attempts, none of the proposals progressed. Parliamentary sessions continue to rely primarily on raising hands, and, in some cases, votes are recorded without even conducting a formal roll call, raising persistent concerns over procedural accuracy and transparency.

The constitutional debate remains at the center of controversy. Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri has repeatedly argued that electronic voting cannot be adopted without first amending Article 36 of the Constitution, which provides that votes are cast orally, by standing and sitting, or (particularly on legislation and confidence votes) through roll-call voting.

However, supporters of reform argue that the Constitution never explicitly mentions voting by raising hands, a practice that has become routine despite not being expressly stipulated. They maintain that adopting electronic voting primarily requires amendments to Parliament’s internal rules rather than the Constitution itself. Even those who acknowledge the need for constitutional amendments note that several draft laws addressing this issue have already been submitted, yet none have advanced. Therefore, the prolonged delay reflects political calculations more than legal obstacles.

As Lebanon continues to pursue governance reforms aimed at strengthening public institutions, electronic voting remains one of the clearest opportunities to improve legislative transparency, procedural accuracy, and democratic accountability.