DUBAI (AlArabiya.net)
Since the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in February 2005, the whole political system in Lebanon has almost come to a standstill. To add salt to injury, regional and international affiliations resulted in a dangerous process of polarization on the local politics.
The country was split down sectarian lines in a way that risks uncontrollable violence. The war Israel launched on Lebanon, in retaliation for an operation by Hezbollah fighters that resulted in killing and wounding several soldiers and capturing two more, also had its own repercussions politically.
Despite the apparent unity during the 33-day long war, differences among the two major blocks in Lebanon went out of hand following the end of that war in August 2006. The country has, since then, been divided into two rival camps. The ruling majority – in terms of parliamentary seat – is called the March 14 camp. That camp includes the parliamentary majority, led by Hariris son Saad and Sunni Muslim Prime Minster Fouad Siniora. It is called the anti-Syria and/or pro-western camp.
The other camp is called March 8 and it includes the Hezbollah-led opposition forces. That camp comprises two main posts; current president Emil Lahoud and parliamentary speaker Nabih Berri.
According to Lebanon’s constitution, parliament elects the president, who must be a Christian Maronite, in line with Al-Taif Agreement that put an end to the country’s destructive civil war (1975-1989). In the first reading in parliament, at least a two-third majority is a must to elect a president. The second reading requires a simple majority.
Why is this presidential vote different then?
The ruling majority insists they have constitutional rights to elect a president with a simple majority in the second reading even if a consensus president proposal fails.
The opposition, on the other hand, argues the current Siniora government is unconstitutional after the six Shiite ministers pulled out of it. The opposition is supported by the current pro-Syria president.
The reasons for the current standoff are simple. Hezbollah and other pro-Syrian parties do not want a president who will favor the West and facilitate a U.N. investigation into the murder of Hariri and other anti-Syrian politicians. They also argue the Taif Agreement recognized the role of Syria whose decisive intervention did bring an end to the civil war, even though Damascus itself had been one of the behind-the-scenes players in that awful bloodletting.
The so-called pro-Washington parties believe that only by working closely with the West will Lebanon restore its former pivotal place in Arab affairs, not least as a financial and commercial center.
At first sight there would seem to be no common ground. The Lebanese president, who is elected for six years, is more than a constitutional figurehead; in fact, he has substantial powers. Though the role is by agreement always held by a Maronite Christian while the premier is a Muslim, the presidential contest is between the pro-Syrian Michel Aoun (once no friend of Damascus) and three anti-Syrian candidates who have all been variously characterized as pro-Washington.
Worst-case scenario
Worst-case scenario if the parliament fails to agree on a president until Lahoud’s term expires in November may be that Lahoud goes ahead with his threat and appoint a new government. This means Lebanon may have two rival governments. This would be a grim reminder of violence simply because a similar situation ignited the civil war.
Compiled by Khaled Mamdouh |
