President Suleiman defines the issues and Jumblatt reconsiders his position post-elections.

Friday, Aug 7 2009

"The delay in the formation of the new government invites us to consider constitutional loopholes (…). If the obstacle lies in us leaders then we should resign, and if the obstacle lies in sectarianism, then let us deal with it and abolish political sectarianism (…)”. These words are drawn from the speech made by President Suleiman on the occasion of Army Day in which he clearly defines the problems facing the Lebanese people post-Taef.

Very early on, the National Dialogue Party noticed that President Suleiman was fed up with the drawn out process of forming the new government. From the very moment that Saad Hariri was appointed the task of forming a new government, the President has repeatedly called for calm either through discussions with his visitors, or via speeches made at various public occasions. There is no doubt that the President has shown courage when urging the various political forces to live up to their responsibilities. He has also recently shown courage in addressing the legal loopholes that have allowed for such a delay in the formation of the new government, the need to abolish political sectarianism, and finally the rejection of political quotas in the government.

Despite the fact that there is no clear deadline for the Prime Minister designate to complete his task, there is a clear warning in President Suleiman’s speech about the dangers of this situation. Here we are, six weeks into the process, and there is still no change in the political landscape with regard to the new government. It is true that consultations are continuing but they have not yet borne any fruits. The President cannot ask the PM designate to step down as this is not within his rights according to the Taef agreement. And, for reasons that go back to the Doha agreement, President Suleiman finds himself once again facing a problem that does not seem to have a solution.

Herein lies the problem. The President now finds himself in the midst of major obstacles hindering the process of forming the new government as well as in the midst of some serious changes, namely the recent political repositioning of MP Walid Jumblatt which is contributing to the delay we are witnessing. The President also has to deal with the fact that there is no clear deadline for the completion of the task of forming a new government although this has serious repercussions on the economic situation of the country as well as on its political stability. President Suleiman has also raised a very important issue, namely the ambiguity concerning the President’s powers in such situations.

Since the Taef agreement, the Executive body has become vested within the Cabinet. The constitution maintained some of the President of the Republic’s powers, and added some new powers. However, the President cannot exercise his rights independently of the Council of Ministers and Presidential decrees, with the exception of naming the Prime Minister, and these must carry alongside the President’s signature, the signatures of the Prime Minister, and the competent ministers.

The ambiguity in several articles of the constitution relating to the presidential powers has led to a sort of confusion between the powers of the President of the Republic and those of the Prime Minister which has led to various struggles between the two heads. Examples of such struggles include the struggle between the three heads during the office of the late President Hrawi that culminated in what was referred to as the “troika”. The National Dialogue Party proposes the following solutions:

Article 33 of the constitution states that the President of the Republic “On agreement with the Prime Minister, summons the Chamber of Deputies to hold special sessions by decree”. This in itself may cause disagreement between the two heads. We believe that the best solution is to allocate this right to the Council of Ministers that takes the decision based on a majority vote.

Article 56 of the constitution states that the President of the Republic: “Issues decrees and demands their publication. He shall also be entitled to ask the cabinet to reconsider any resolution it makes within 15 days of the date of deposition of the resolution with the presidential office. Should the cabinet insist on the adopted resolution, or should the grace period pass without issuing and returning the decree, the decree of the resolution shall be valid and must be published”. The said deadline does not apply to the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers – logic demands that the same deadline must apply to all.

Article 53 of the constitution states the President of the Republic shall: “Name the Prime Minister designate in consultation with the Chamber of Deputies speaker on the basis of binding parliamentary consultation, the outcome of which the president shall officially familiarize the speaker on”. This raises the following question: is the President “bound” by the nomination, or simply “bound” to engaging is such consultations? There have been different views regarding the matter, especially during Emile Lahoud’s term in office. We believe that the spirit of the text points to “binding” consultations rather than being bound to any results.

Article 53, section 4 of the constitution, states that the President shall “Issue the decree appointing the Prime Minister independently and on agreement with the Prime Minister and issue the decree forming the Cabinet”. However, the constitution does not provide a mechanism for resolving a dispute should this occur between the President and the Prime Minister. The constitution, in its Preamble, clarifies that the Lebanese system is based on “cooperation” between the authorities. In the event that the three heads reach a gridlock, then the best outcome would be for the Prime Minister to apologize, and for the President to re-conduct his consultations. Should the majority in favour of the Prime Minister remain adamant about its position, then the President should comply and rename him Prime Minister designate.

Article 53, section 12 of the constitution states that the President may: “On agreement with the Prime Minister, summon the Cabinet to hold special sessions by decree. The President is entitled to present to the Cabinet any urgent issue beyond the agenda”. However, what would happen if the two did not agree? We believe that the President must himself retain the right to summon the Council of Ministers. However, President Suleiman is not the only one to have rung the alarm bells in the days that the Lebanese people patiently await the birth of a new government. Perhaps Walid Jumblatt’s position will have a positive outcome in the formation of a parliamentary bloc that would act as a backup to the president and strengthen his position that will undoubtedly support political balance, both internally and regionally.

Here, we must thank Mr. Jumblatt who supported our views, when he reviewed his political alliance and reviewed the parliamentary elections describing them in hindsight as “tribal”. This is a political leader who knows better than anyone else the details of the last parliamentary elections, which we at the NDP spoke of and warned about repeatedly.

However, it must be said that there is still fear that the new government will be based on “pie sharing” and on governing by agreement. The biggest danger remains the development of relations with Syria especially in these times where there is a move by the US and the international community to find a solution to the Arab-Israeli struggle, and more specifically a solution to the Palestinian problem, which at this point looks like it will take place at the expense of Lebanon.

A final word to the Prime Minister designate Saad Hariri: the secrecy that is veiling the formation of the new government will not lead to anything. What is required is a clear plan to deal with the economic crisis and the mounting public debt. In addition, relations with Syria must be improved rather than slamming the door in the face of talks, especially at a time when regional considerations have not changed and there have been no peace agreements with Israel that protect Lebanon, its land and water, refuse Palestinian nationalization or end Netanyahu’s repeated threats against Lebanon.