Listen to the article
It all starts with this fundamental question: what conditions would make the presence of a President economically favorable? Then, what type of President? Under specific circumstances, could it be more convenient to keep this position vacant?
Two years after the power vacuum, the turmoil surrounding the presidential election is ongoing. It started with Nabih Berri’s peculiar proposal: seven days of dialogue, followed by a continuous series of electoral sessions.
Absurd and bizarre because what could on earth be discussed for seven whole days? Especially given that the initiator of this dialogue has demonstrated an attention span of no more than 15 minutes per topic during parliamentary sessions, before bluntly silencing dissenters and then delivering a simple “Approved” with the gavel, leaving everyone in the dark about who approved what. Which, by the way, is not such a big deal since most likely the passed bill will not even be implemented.
Since then, other parliamentary groups have been proposing softer alternatives to the initial plan: two days of dialogue followed by an open session; three hours of dialogue followed by a snack break with Bonjus and cookies, followed by diligent sessions, and so on.
But we rarely hear about the requirements and “economic programs” tied to this election: what would be the ideal personality profile to bring economic benefits, considering our crisis is purely economic, if not by root cause, then definitely by its obvious effects? So, let’s deal with this tangled web with a series of scenarios:
First scenario: A president aligned with Hezbollah. There are plenty to choose from, along with others who, eagerly eyeing the opportunity, might join in by not only promising “not to stab Hezbollah in the back,” but to also stroke its ego for a full six years.
Economically, we can expect the following outcomes: tighter control by the moumanaa (Axis of “Resistance”) over the administration, coupled with persistent corruption; reduced oversight of the informal economy, which will be further capitalized by the same stakeholders; increased investor wariness; intensified scrutiny from international financial institutions; and further deteriorating relations with Gulf countries… In other words, sheer economic nirvana.
Second scenario: A president more aligned with the opposition camp. This could potentially restore confidence among Arab nations and the international community. The expatriate community could be more inclined to invest its money and expertise in what it might view as a promising opportunity for renewal. The sky seems to be clearing up.
Third scenario: An economic president. Even though presidential powers are limited, this type of president might at least, for a change, understand what his advisors are talking about. He would have a comprehensive grasp of the causes, effects, and solutions to the crisis. He could make a difference, provided that a coalition of lawmakers supports him in shaping and enacting necessary legislation. In any case, he would be a credible interlocutor for the international community.
Fourth scenario: A bland, uninspiring president. In other words, just a beating pulse that would be the result of a hasty compromise. We’d likely continue to see the same empty rhetoric and mediocrity, only worse. A mediocre leader would not tolerate having more qualified team members or a prime minister who overshadows him. We might end up with a team of incompetents just to ensure everyone remains at the same ground zero. In short, the political mediocrity we’ve come to expect, just taken to a new level…
Fifth scenario: An extension of the presidential vacuum. Given the current trend, we can expect the following: further mandatory adjustments for businesses and individuals; a persistent – albeit moderate – emigration; an economy that operates outside any rational framework, yet somehow manages to keep going; a somewhat more active banking sector; and a (very) partial handling of old deposits. It’s not exactly euphoria but more like a form of chaotic survival.
Economically speaking, this scenario might rank after the second and third options but before the first and fourth. This is merely to address those who argue that any president is better than the vacuum. Let’s recall that this same argument was used during Michel Aoun’s unanimous election, and we’ve experienced the misfortunes that followed this so-called “non-vacuum.”
As a side note, one hidden advantage of the current vacuum (for lack of a good president) is that economic key players still cling to the hope that better days will eventually loom. However, with a second-rate leader in power, that hope will likely be put on hold for six long years.
