Source: Al-Hayat
Date: 2009-04-20
The struggle over the period following parliamentary elections in Lebanon has begun before the elections have been held. In principle, the results that come out of the ballot boxes should determine the political direction in the next phase, as well as the shape and the program of the new government. However, statements and stances do not suggest that it will be that easy, which raises yet again an old question about the justification for the wide-ranging uproar surrounding the electoral process.
The stances that were announced by each of Premier Fouad Siniora and Speaker Nabih Berri sum up the current disagreement over the post-election period, especially in terms of clinging to the theory of the "obstructing" or "guaranteeing one-third." Indeed, the current opposition insists upon it and considers it to be a condition upon which it will not yield when forming a government after the elections, regardless of who wins the majority. The Speaker has taken it upon himself to defend this theory by saying that it ensures everyone's participation in managing the affairs of the state, as that it is a practical interpretation of consensual democracy, which according to Berri is not unrelated to the Taif Agreement. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, on the other hand, when launching his electoral campaign in the city of Saida, asserted that the idea of the obstructing one-third is unrelated to both the Lebanese system and the Taif Agreement, that the formula which was agreed upon in Doha was a temporary solution to the disagreement that had crippled institutions back then, and that there is no need to maintain it now.
However, calling upon the Taif Agreement to justify the theory of obstruction would be a misinterpretation of this agreement. It is true that the Taif Agreement asserts in its introduction that "there is no constitutional legitimacy for any authority which contradicts the pact of communal coexistence," yet until today no one had ever concluded that "communal coexistence" meant that the parliamentary minority should have the power to impose its stances. Indeed, the same constitution states that "the people are the source of authority and sovereignty," which is supposed to mean that the votes of electors should determine the political direction of the country.
Nevertheless, far from constitutional debate, there are two points of view that are dividing the country and that go beyond disagreement over political programs. In such a climate, and with the current opposition's ability to impose its point of view, either by obtaining the majority or by clinging to "obstruction," the exercise by voters of their electoral rights becomes merely an activity akin to folklore, as its effects on politics will be limited. True democratic practice calls for the winning majority to have the power to take control of government and implement its political plans. Yet "obstruction" prevents the majority from exercising the right it has obtained as a result of the elections.
The only case in which the next majority will be able to act as a majority is if the current opposition wins the elections, in which case a large part of the March 14 alliance will refrain from participating in the government. This means that these elections are only going in one direction: either the March 8 Alliance will win the majority through the elections, or it will obtain the "majority" through obstruction, with what this will entail in terms of returning to the old predicament which brought forth the formula for the current government, now viewed as "historical" by those in the opposition.
____________________________Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews
No comments:
Post a Comment