It is a battle between strict adherence to the Constitution and attempts to overturn it and establish new conventions, whereas electing a new president requires, first and foremost, an unwavering commitment to the text.
While opposition forces remain committed to a clear, constitutionally-based roadmap for the presidential election, the Hezbollah-led camp, or “moumanaa” forces, are countering this strategy with criticism, skepticism, misinformation, fabrications and heresy. The Shiite duo’s (Amal/Hezbollah) insistence on a dialogue led by Speaker Nabih Berry as a prerequisite for the election is driving the entire process into uncertainty and jeopardizing the election itself. Their aim is to impose the “moumanaa” candidate and control the process in line with their own agenda.
It is a battle waged by the opposition to assert the Constitution as the rightful framework unequivocally. If the Constitution is clear, why is there a need to seek consensus that could undermine it? It is known that the opposition's proposal has consistently focused on parliamentary consultation and has not abandoned it. The real issue is the rejection of dialogue, which the "moumanaa" forces risk exploiting to their benefit, thus blatantly violating constitutional texts. Consequently, the opposition will reject this approach under any circumstances, though it prefers avoiding unnecessary disputes.
It is clear that adherence to the Constitution is the only choice for the opposition, and it is reflected in their roadmap. It is the most effective weapon against any other form of constitutional heresy.
What does the Constitution say about making dialogue a prerequisite for electing a president of the Republic? Why break the fundamental constitutional principle in this context?
According to constitutional expert Professor Said Malek, in an interview with sister company Houna Loubnan, it is well-established that constitutional conventions (or customs) consist of behaviors and practices that become integral to constitutional considerations. Some scholars define the customary as the repetition of certain practices in a specific way, with the expectation that such practices become legally binding in similar situations. Therefore, if the requirement for dialogue before any presidential election is recognized and applied, it will become a constitutional consideration and would be deemed constitutionally binding with every electoral process.
Professor Georges Vedel, a prominent constitutional scholar and leading doctrinal authority in France, contends that precedents diverging from the statutory law, or the Constitution, constitute a breach of written legal norms. According to Vedel, a convention is a concession to the traditional notion of the Constitution, bearing in mind that scholars, specialized in constitutional law, went as far as to believe that conventions can override constitutional texts.
Consequently, a convention today is the product of both material and moral elements, emerging when a community perceives that a particular practice is essential for resolving issues. In this context, constitutional conventions can complement the role of the Constitution, reflecting a collective sense of necessity to adhere to the conventional norm and to act accordingly, driven by the principle of commitment.
Malek argues that imposing dialogue as a prerequisite for elections establishes a new constitutional norm that amends and contradicts the written Constitution. He warns that this practice could, in the future, evolve into a new convention that amends the constitutional provisions and undermines the mechanism of electing a president, stipulated in the constitutional provisions.
MP Gebran Bassil's proposal to overturn conventions with a written paper signed by the relevant parties is a constitutional heresy, as a convention is established first through the community's conviction that dialogue should precede any election. A written paper or document does not prevent the emergence of a convention that amends constitutional provisions. We must either acknowledge that the Constitution is to be applied and its constitutional norms respected, or succumb to proposals and heresies aimed at creating new conventions that contradict the text provisions and spirit.
Thus, it is a battle between strict adherence to the Constitution and attempts to overturn it by establishing new conventions. The path to electing a new president requires, first and foremost, unwavering commitment to the Constitution, with consensus achievable once this commitment is in place.
Read more
Comments