There is a proposed law currently under consideration by Lebanese ministers that is designed to address the state of country’s embattled banks. It incorporates a provision that puts bank deposits into two categories.
One is qualified bank deposits, denominated in foreign currencies before the mass anti-government protests of 19 October 2019. The other is unqualified bank deposits, which are converted into foreign currencies after that date.
The uprising of 19 October 2019, sometimes called a revolution, saw huge protests against the government after ministers said they would introduce taxes on things like gasoline, tobacco, and internet calling.
The protests led to the resignation of Saad Hariri and his cabinet. This, in turn, triggered Lebanon’s political paralysis, which continues to this day.
The legislation establishes a maximum limit of $100,000 for qualified bank deposits’ cash collateral and $36,000 for unqualified.
The idea has been met with disapproval from deposit holders. They argue that the officials entrusted with enforcing the law lack the necessary qualifications to classify deposits and safeguard individuals’ rights impartially.
Conflicts of interest
This criticism arises from apparent conflicts of interest— something that most developed countries would frown upon.
Many such nations have codes of ethics for Members of Parliament (MPs) that enshrine principles of conduct. Some codes employ penalties for non-compliance, others do not.
MPs in countries like Germany, the UK, and Ireland must disclose any existing or potential conflicts, encompassing both assets and liabilities.
In Sweden, for example, MPs have to recuse themselves on matters personally relevant to them or their relatives. In Canada, lawmakers cannot vote on issues in which they hold a specific interest.
Ministers and public sector officials, particularly those overseeing the central bank, are held to more rigorous standards due to their pivotal role in fund management, programme development, and access to sensitive information.
If the proposed law in Lebanon passes, its aim will partly be to enhance transparency and mitigate conflicts of interest while also addressing the state of the country's banks and their restructuring.
Commission membership
It says that each member of the overseeing commission must declare any direct or indirect connections with any bank over the preceding two years.
Moreover, commission members should abstain from voting on decisions pertaining to the bank with which they have connections.
The legislation also lists specific criteria for avoiding conflicts. This says commission members should be neither major shareholders nor previous directors or senior managers of banks nor have acted as advisors to them.
Furthermore, it says commission members would ideally not be borrowers, depositors, or have any family relations at the banks, within reason. The criteria also apply to any temporary manager appointed by the commission for a bank.
In Lebanon, politicians have long had close relationships with banks. Many, therefore, ask why this proposed law on conflicts of interest does not extend to MPs and ministers.
Lebanon's current Prime Minister Najib Mikati, for instance, is a significant shareholder in one of the largest banks and a beneficiary of substantial subsidy loans, yet he is central in this oversight process.
Questionable ties
The international community has questioned the ties between Lebanon's politicians, bankers, and central bankers, particularly over their dealings with Hezbollah.
As reported by Le Monde on 30 November 2020, this was characterised by a troubling two-way dynamic. Hezbollah tolerates the political-financial oligarchy's indiscretions, according to the logic.
The oligarchy reciprocates by overlooking Hezbollah's involvement in arms, corruption, Captagon (fenethylline) production, the smuggling of goods through ports, and its 'soft loans'.
On 21 October 2021, The Washington Post brought global attention to the Lebanese central bank's orchestration of a scheme to enrich politicians, highlighting the bankers' cosy relationship with MPs.
The article showed the huge extent to which the country's banking sector was concentrated in just a few hands, with politicians never far away.
A total of 18 banks had significant political ties, meaning that almost half of the sector's assets were linked to politicians.