Anyone who has not been selected by the impact platform system after filling out the application form for the "Support" card (the funding card and the safety card) and believes they are entitled to it should contact the hotline 1747 at the Central Inspection. The problem here is that the call does not give the caller any rights or benefit, as "the computer is the one that chooses," as the response goes. This "computer" is supposed to "select" based on clear criteria, but the reality on the ground does not suggest what these criteria are. For example, how does the computer "choose" employees who receive part of their salaries in dollars, own houses and cars, while overlooking an eighty-year-old widow living in her daughter's home, or a seventy-year-old sharing her deceased husband's pension with her unmarried daughter, residing in her sister's daughter's house? When the caller asks about this on the hotline, the answer is that one can "report" those who receive funding they do not deserve! This means the program wants those who have not benefited from the card to "spoil" the benefit for those who have received it unjustly. This alone is enough to cast doubt on the effectiveness of this entire "system."
The discussion of selectivity, discrimination, and injustice in choosing beneficiaries provokes anger from the Minister of Social Affairs, Hector Hajjar, who is seated on the seventh floor of his ministry, armed with the assertion that the ministry team (though few) and NGOs are responsible for home visits to evaluate the situation of beneficiary families to ensure they meet the set criteria. However, these home visits increase selectivity instead of reducing it. In remote villages and towns, for instance, the person conducting the assessment of the applicant's eligibility against the criteria is often a local resident, which opens the door wide to further selectivity based on kinship, personal acquaintance, and even bribery, resulting in families receiving fresh dollar salaries benefiting while others in need are excluded, depending on what this "assessor" deems appropriate. This again raises questions about the usefulness of the specific details required to be filled out by applicants on the platform if they do not provide any practical advantage other than revealing personal data on Lebanese citizens.
In this manner, some registration, acceptance, and benefit processes are operated, and from this standpoint, the Minister of Social Affairs demands that the government pay the British NGO "Siren" for maintaining and monitoring this system, which he believes is successful. When asked about the complaints regarding selectivity and manipulation, the minister merely points to the World Bank's satisfaction with the ministry's performance and its oversight of what is happening, as if the World Bank has never financed any of the corruption projects in Lebanon historically. Additionally, there is the ambiguity surrounding the reason why assistance was halted at 75,000 beneficiaries in the first year, despite the availability of funding for 150,000 (the Minister of Social Affairs published a news item a few days ago about discussions with the World Bank to increase the number of beneficiaries and the ability to attract additional funding to extend assistance).
The Central Inspection was supposed to be the arbiter of the good or poor management of the platform, were it not for the fact that this body manages the platform and is also responsible for overseeing its management, thus exceeding its authority. This overreach was the subject of a letter sent by Prime Minister Najib Mikati on August 1, 2022, to the head of the inspection, Judge George Atiyeh, and the Court of Accounts and the Public Prosecution, which included observations about "the decision referred to the inspection to analyze and evaluate the data regarding inquiries and complaints received from citizens, so that those who manage cannot look into the complaints related to the management style that they themselves follow." The letter also noted "what is being said about manipulation and favoritism in selecting beneficiaries from the social safety net program, at a time when we learned that information from the platform was leaked to unofficial parties (...) particularly since it was entered and saved on servers outside Lebanon on prior dates, and that the possibility or hypothesis of its hacking may have occurred during the past period."
