If the Lebanese people are given a choice, they will choose an independent judiciary.

Friday, Mar 13 2009

A few days ago, Lebanon witnessed a political struggle between the ruling authority and the opposition regarding the judicial appointments, both of whom form part of the national unity government. This is taking place in the lead-up to the electoral campaigns for the parliamentary elections due to take place in June, alongside the mobilization of sectarianism and factionalism, the bitter fruits of which we shall see in the ballot boxes.

Everyone in Lebanon is aware of the dangers of sectarian, regional and factional divisions in government. People are also only too aware of the detestable policy of distributing spoils amongst some of the political authorities represented in the prospective government; indeed, this policy is particularly clear in Prime Minister Seniora’s national unity government in the judicial appointments which have been politicized and subjected to conciliations and trade-offs between the authorities represented in government. This can be seen in the selections of the members of the Constitutional Council in parliament. Had the Lebanese people, of all sects, been given the choice, they would have made abundantly clear their desire for the judicial institutions to remain independent of political ambitions.

However, as was the case with previous judicial appointments and indeed since after the Taef agreement, the independence of the judiciary is subject to influence or interference from both the executive and legislative powers, which can only have negative implications for the judiciary in Lebanon. Had there been any control over the judicial appointments, then this flagrant interference by the executive power both in the Constitutional Council and in Cabinet, would have been particularly revealing. We are seeing a cycle of conflict and agreement within the political authority on a daily basis. This issue needs to be exposed in its entirety so as to remove this dangerous entanglement in judicial issues. Every time that the national unity government seems under threat, the threats and promises to renege on the Doha agreements begin – not in its provisos relating to the various deals and divisions particularly in relation to the electoral law, but rather in the escalation of this oppressive route. The problem does not lie only in this open conflict, but also in the fact that what is required is free choice far from political desires and ambitions. We are seeing a great deal of extortion with suggestions being made which can only harm the people as they are preludes to dangerous alignments on the streets and constitute a grave danger to national unity and civil peace.

Does this all not violate the Taef agreement and the constitution which states that political confessionalism as a primary national goal should be abolished? We at the National Dialogue Party believe that the current situation calls for hard work to implement the stipulations of the Taef agreement by cancelling political confessionalism in stages. It is incumbent on parliament, divided equally amongst Muslims and Christians, to take the necessary precautions to achieve this goal and to form a national body under the leadership of the president, which also contains the Speaker of the House and the Prime Minister, as well as other political, intellectual and social figures, whose role is to study and suggest ways of cancelling political confessionalism and to present these to Cabinet and parliament. We may start with the cancellation of the basis of confessional representation and a move towards the reliance on competence in the appointments of the judiciary, military institutions and the security institutions amongst others. These may be split equally amongst Christians and Muslims but without allocating any positions to any particular sect, along with a revision of the administrative divisions. All of this will help to assure national fusion, the maintenance of the concept of communal living and the integrity of the land, the people and the institutions.

However, the problem with the judiciary remains the largest and the most dangerous. To where will the citizen turn when there is a fight over a specific issue or matter? Who will guarantee the rights of any politician when the political roles are turned upside down if there is no free judiciary separate from group ambitions and independent of the executive and legislative powers? The whole country stands to be adversely affected if the judiciary is controlled by a particular sect - the only certainties are the state institutions and primary amongst these is the judiciary. This political layer has subjugated the power of the judiciary to its whims and worst of all, it has internationalized the judiciary rather than ensuring its total independence from the executive power under the surveillance of the Higher Judiciary Courts. What is particularly sad is the Lebanese political authority’s readiness to drown the country in blood for the sake of maintaining the sectarian system which it relies on to renew its patronage and to confirm its economic, political and regional interests.

The political power, whether the ruling authority or the opposition, does not seem to provide an exit to the continued crises. Instead, the situation is heading towards further complication. This is having repercussions on the ground as seen in the increase in the political and social division of the country. No one can guarantee civil calm even for one day, and the required security will not happen without a political agreement. No one can be absolutely certain of the particular timing of the termination of a problem, as the various powers consider that their private interests in the parliamentary elections are a goal in themselves.

The internal steadfastness which is required in order to maintain the institutions calls for, in turn, a halt in the calls for sectarian conflicts and the collection of electoral interests. What our country really needs is the work of its institutions to be real, particularly the judiciary. This calls for the current government to look at the effectiveness of the state institutions and to find solutions to the health, economic and social problems which are afflicting the country and its people.

With these worries in mind, we look to the success of the upcoming Arab summit meeting in Doha which many are hoping will provide inter-Arab conciliation and provide a forum for the leaders to look past their differences in favor of lasting conciliations. Any inter-Arab agreement, whether in the meetings between Saudi Arabia and Syria or in the preparations for three-way meetings between Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, will serve to relieve the Lebanese interior as these reconciliations will provide a lifeline to the prevention of renewed sectarian and confessional conflicts, particularly between the Sunnis and Shiites in the country.

This conflict allows some units within the ruling authority to keep control despite the dangers of the escalating cracks in Lebanon’s national unity, the paralysis and absence of its institutions and the toying with our country’s formula of communal living, freedom, economic role and unity. This needs to be limited by the Saudi Arabian-Syrian-Egyptian meetings so that Lebanon will not remain a victim to the failed and corrupt political layer. The president needs to begin immediate work on implementing the Taef agreement and to emphasize the goal of the cancellation of political confessionalism so as to remove the decaying factors in the country’s structure.

Will the Lebanese people benefit from an internal calm brought about by the upcoming Arab summit meeting in Doha or will it simply provide an opportunity to those who dream of redrawing the area and gambling with the fate of Lebanon? This is the question which should be on the minds of the Arab leaders who are only too aware of the dangers of keeping Lebanon open to crises. The only way of getting the country out of this is through inter-Arab conciliations, particularly as the American policy has not yet clarified its approach, despite Jeffrey Feltman’s shuttling between Damascus and Beirut which has yet to reveal its true significance!

The Arab states are racing to intervene and will have fulfilled their political, national, Islamic and humanitarian duties if they do not place others in lieu of the Arabs to take responsibility for Arab affairs. Arab harmony is badly needed at this time. The situation in Sudan is explosive and is heading towards the same fate as Iraq, the Palestinian situation is devastated due to the continued blockade on Gaza and the West bank under the government of the newly elected Benjamin Netanyahu, and Lebanon is suffering, as its existence has always been and continues to be threatened by Israel, particularly after Resolution 1701 stopped the acts of war but not the violence.

In a final word to the Lebanese people, we at the National Dialogue Party see the need for a review of the way of dealing with the judiciary, the judicial transfers and appointments and the choice of the Constitutional Council. The judiciary must be allowed to select its own people while remaining independent from the executive and legislative powers, otherwise the freedom of Lebanon and its people will be seriously threatened.