Jihad Azour. ( Credit: AFP / GIUSEPPE CACACE)
Despite capturing headlines since his endorsement by the opposition and the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), Jihad Azour diligently adheres to the restraint expected of his position as director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)’s Department for the Middle East and Central Asia.
Azour, a former finance minister and currently on temporary leave from his duties at the IMF, has so far confined himself to a press release issued on Monday. In the statement, he disclaimed any intent to “challenge anyone” and portrayed his candidacy as a unifying force that represents the grandest aspirations of the Lebanese people rather than the narrow interests of political factions.
In essence, Azour presents himself as a conciliatory figure emphasizing unity and avoiding confrontation, despite his candidacy being backed by an agreement aimed at thwarting Sleiman Frangieh, Hezbollah’s preferred candidate.
However, despite his advantage over Frangieh during Wednesday’s parliamentary session, [during which Azour managed to secure 59 votes to Frangieh’s 51], there remains a dearth of information regarding Azour and his policy stance.
This ambiguity suggests a range of possibilities in an intensely polarized Lebanese political landscape and hinders the former finance minister from shaping his own public perception.
Consequently, it is left to others to speak on his behalf, who examine his past, his supporters, and his perceived virtues and shortcomings, as they seek to provide justifications for either endorsing or opposing Azour’s candidacy.
To some of his supporters, Azour represents a “moderate” figure capable of forging compromises and moving away from the era of a “strong presidency,” [in reference to the term of former President Michel Aoun, who was often referred to as the “strong president”].
Meanwhile, others view Azour as a liberal who can champion private enterprise and bring an end to administrative mismanagement.
For Hezbollah loyalists, Azour is perceived as a threat aligned with “American imperialism,” and some of the more fervent voices even consider him a direct affront to the resistance, as highlighted by the recent statement from Jaafari mufti Ahmad Kabalan.
To some of the protest movement’s MPs, Azour is still seen as a symbol of the corrupt establishment.
But who is Jihad Azour and what are his true beliefs?
L’Orient-Le Jour had the opportunity to meet Azour on multiple occasions during informal gatherings over the past few months. In addition, interviews with Azour have been conducted with former colleagues, close associates, and critics, all in an effort to shed light on what his potential presidency would entail.
Endorsed by Siniora
In the absence of clearly defined positions, it is Azour’s career that serves as the primary defining factor in the eyes of both his supporters and opponents.
His impressive resume boasts prestigious degrees from institutions like Sciences Po Paris and Harvard, which paved the way for a lengthy tenure at the Finance Ministry.
Progressing through the ranks, Azour eventually held the portfolio. Later on, he embarked on an international career path with the IMF, which solidified his reputation as a skilled technocrat, capable of handling budgetary matters and engaging in tough negotiations.
Within this eminent career, one particular period garners significant attention.
Despite being labeled by his critics as a “[Fouad] Siniora boy,” as was articulated by a Hezbollah MP, Azour’s collaboration with the former prime minister was not a matter of course.
Their paths first crossed at the Finance Ministry in October 2000 when late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who had recently formed his government, entrusted Siniora, his trusted associate, with the responsibility of managing the state’s finances.
Upon entering his office, Siniora allegedly found a resignation letter, signed by Azour, who was then heading the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) unit at the Treasury. Azour had previously held this position under former Finance Minister Georges Corm, who notably opposed the “Harirism” principles.
With the change in leadership, Azour expected to be replaced by an appointee chosen by the new administration, as is typically the norm. However, this did not happen.
“Siniora valued his profile and expertise and was determined not to let him go,” said a close associate of Siniora during that time.
The bond between the two men quickly deepened and according to those in their inner circle, Siniora was greatly impressed by Azour’s astute political acumen.
Siniora appointed Azour as finance minister in his government, in the aftermath of Rafik Hariri’s assassination in 2005, a critical period for the nation. Azour remained in this position until the fall of the cabinet in 2008.
“In the wake of Rafik Hariri’s assassination, the country was in a pivotal phase, and Fouad Siniora required a trusted figure in the ministry,” Siniora’s close associate said. “That’s precisely why he chose Azour.”
Azour’s three-year tenure was marked by a series of crises, including the 2006 war with Israel, the Nahr al-Bared armed conflict the following year, surging oil prices, Hezbollah violence on May 7, 2008, and the subsequent Doha Agreement, which Azour refused to sign.
“Faced with these challenges, Azour was working day and night to prepare for the [2007] Paris III Conference, which raised major donations for the reconstruction of Lebanon,” a colleague of the IMF official said.
“He played a role in the passage of the law on tax procedures, which modernized and standardized tax collection in Lebanon,” said tax lawyer Karim Daher.
“At the time, along with other ministers such as Tarek Mitri and Sami Haddad, Jihad Azour formed a group of rather independent and reformist ministers, who sometimes went against the advice of their prime minister,” said political scientist Karim Bitar, who has known Azour for nearly 10 years but is critical of the economic policy adopted by Lebanon at the time.
Despite his claim of being independent, Azour’s detractors, whether aligned with the March 8 camp or the protest movement group, criticize his tenure at the Finance Ministry which they claim involves malpractice on his part..
One former minister denounced the absence of a draft budget presented to Parliament, adding that the government operated under the rule of the provisional twelfth, which allowed spending without adequate scrutiny.
Between 2006 and 2016, the Lebanese government spent over $136 billion and accrued $36 billion in debts without sufficient oversight from Parliament, raising suspicions of a potential misappropriation of funds.
In his 2013 book titled “Le quitus impossible,” Ibrahim Kanaan, Chairman of the Parliamentary Finance Committee, accused Siniora of manipulating accounts and misusing public funds — an allegation Siniora has consistently denied.
“Jihad Azour ensured that a draft budget was presented every year and debated by the cabinet,” said a former minister under the Siniora government. “It was rather Parliament and its Speaker Nabih Berri who refused to receive the law text.”
“It is not necessarily the minister’s fault if a budget wasn’t voted in Parliament in those years, provided that he fulfilled his mission of drawing up and coordinating the various ministries within the constitutional and legal timeframes,” Daher said.
“But if he becomes president, will he remain silent in the face of similar practices, or will he say no?”
‘Reconnecting Lebanon to the world’
Azour’s experience within the IMF, where he was appointed by Christine Lagarde to lead the Middle East and Central Asia department in 2016, following his tenure in the private sector at firms like Booz & Company and Inventis Partners, has drawn scrutiny from the Amal Movement and Hezbollah.
However, for his supporters, Azour’s background serves as a testament to his credibility on the international stage, particularly during a time when Lebanon is yet to implement a comprehensive reform plan to overcome its ongoing crisis.
“Due to his position at IMF, Jihad Azour collaborates with numerous countries that have faced crises similar to ours, such as Pakistan and Egypt,” said Bitar.
Despite Lebanon signing a framework agreement with the IMF last year, the necessary reforms to make tangible progress on this front have yet to be implemented.
While Azour is said to personally believe that reaching an agreement with the IMF is in Lebanon’s best interest, as it would restore confidence and attract more international aid, he intends to respect the prerogatives of the prime minister and others on this issue.
Azour also reportedly aims to leverage his networks to enhance Lebanon’s integration with the international community, emphasizingthe country’s need to regain its international connections after beingdisconnected for at least a decade.
“Reconnecting” Lebanon entails reestablishing its diplomatic role on the global stage, amplifying its voice in addressing regional crises such as refugees and security balances, and capitalizing on the current geopolitical momentum to allow the nation to benefit from the dynamics of regional normalization.
How does he plan to achieve this? By “building bridges with everyone,” from Iran to China, to the Gulf states and Africa, and by remaining cautious not to break the Israeli taboo, as explained by a close associate of his.
Azour reportedly believes that dialogue and openness have never been harmful and that failure to understand shifting winds is what truly hinders progress. Additionally, for Azour, “reconnecting” Lebanon means harnessing the country’s inherent qualities of diversity, freedom, and initiative. He believes that Lebanon, being a small nation, should leverage these strengths in the face of regional competition, particularly in the realms of knowledge, economy and innovation.
This vision may not necessarily resonate with those who view the crisis as an opportunity for Lebanon to fundamentally transform its economic model.
Azour does not appear inclined to impose his vision forcefully on those who disagree.The specific details of his approach on issues like the restructuring of the financial sector, the return of deposits and the privatization of state assets, remains ambiguous.
For Azour, the present moment is not about rigid stances on technicalities but rather about fostering an overarching logic. He reportedly aims to persuade all stakeholders through ongoing dialogue of the necessity to seize the crisis as an opportunity to build a capable state that effectively manages fiscal resources and provides efficient services.
‘A moderate Maronite’
As former minister Michel Pharaon, who collaborated with Azour in the Siniora government, puts it, “His positions have always been flexible and balanced.”
“He is the embodiment of the moderate Maronite perspective,” Bitar says. “Originally from Sir al-Denniyeh, a predominantly Sunni town, [Azour] is committed to Lebanon’s unity and Arab identity. He is often compared to [former President] Elias Sarkis and wants to implement structural reforms without confronting the political establishment or Hezbollah.”
In his informal discussions with L’Orient-Le Jour, Azour insists on the ineffectiveness of
“radical solutions,” swearing by dialogue, “mutual trust,” and the need to establish “schemes that allow everyone to find a balance,” particularly with regards to national defense, which he does not want to deal with in isolation.
According to Azour’s close associates, “he often repeats that the balance in Lebanon has never been a physical balance of power, but a chemical one, and that care must be taken not to destabilize this alchemy.”
Nevertheless, the former finance minister remains seen as a “confrontational candidate” in the eyes of several stakeholders, mainly Hezbollah, which continues to uphold that the Marada Movement leader Sleiman Frangieh is the “consensus candidate.”
This article was originally published in French in L'Orient-Le Jour. Translation by Sahar Ghoussoub.