Listen to the article
An ineffective 12th session? Not Quite… To no one’s suprise, the parliamentary session held on June 14 to elect a president failed to put an end to the presidential vacuum. However, the fact remains that this session holds great significance, even if its meaningful effects will require time to materialize.
The distribution of votes has established what some foreign stakeholders were reluctant to admit, namely that the Hezbollah-Amal duo is far from having a clear majority in Parliament. Quite the opposite, the balance is clearly tilting in favor of a wide range of parties and personalities that challenge the pro-Iranian faction’s modus operandi, as evidenced by the number of votes cast by parliamentary blocs that oppose Hezbollah’s dictates, irrespective of their political inclination, and that amounted to 77 MPs.
What’s more, it can be stated with a reasonable degree of certainty that had the MPs of the so-called “obstructionist” axis, namely the supporters and allies of the Tehran mullahs, not caused a lack of quorum, the results might have been different. The candidate endorsed by the sovereigntist coalition and the Aounist (pro-Michel Aoun) movement would have obtained the 65 votes required to be elected [in the second round], and maybe even more. In fact, it was stipulated that the vote of certain MPs who did not back Jihad Azour in the first round did not reflect a political choice. It was rather motivated by specific and personal considerations that would have undoubtedly withered in the second round in favor of Azour.
In the face of Hezbollah’s intransigence, negotiations are expected to resume with the aim of reaching an agreement on a candidate who would win the approval of both camps. Lebanese Army Commander Joseph Aoun, who has demonstrated his ability to maintain the military institution on foot under the most difficult circumstances, will likely be strongly reconsidered. At the end of the 12th electoral session, the pro-Iranian party strongly advocated for a potential dialogue. However, the factor of time seems to hold little significane to the Shiite party, and as far as it is concerned, “dialogue” can take as long as Ulysses’ long journey. Some of their leaders haven’t shied away from incessantly repeating that they can wait as long it takes to achieve their goals.
It has become clear that the true stakes of the presidential battle holds far greater significance than a mere personal feud or purely political considerations. The following cannot be emphasized enough: the real stakes today lie in a choice between two societal projects and two visions of Lebanon, while defining its role and its mission in this region of the world. The battle pits the project of building a State worthy of its name against the logic of a sectarian mini-state serving the hegemonic ambitions of a distant regional power.
The most serious aspect of this new plight that Lebanon has to undergo is the trivialization of constitutional violations and disregard for constitutional deadlines. This ploy, not unfamiliar to the Shiite duo, will ultimately lead to a slow but systematic deconstruction, not only of the central government but also of the existing political system. In this vein, one recalls the completely unjustified and unconstitutional extensions, under Syrian occupation, of Presidents Elias Hraoui and Emile Lahoud’s mandates. The prolongations, justified as “one-time exceptions” were unlawful decisions tailored to the whims of Damascus allies. Moreover, the successive hindrances to the presidential election since the end of Emile Lahoud’s mandate along with the equally unjustified prolongation of Parliament and municipal councils’ terms occurred during the recent era of Iranian hegemony.
It is certainly not by sheer coincidence that such continuous violations of the Constitution and democratic practices have consistently been carried out by the same political camp, namely the Iranian-Syrian axis. Clearly, we are facing a diabolical endeavor to disfigure Lebanon, or at the very least, a desire to turn it into a permanent hotbed of instability. This reality, which the Lebanese people have been suffering from for decades, calls for a true national awakening. It places sovereigntist parties and personalities before the historical responsibility of maintaining and solidifying the course of action they have managed to map out through the presidential battle, transcending all political and partisan scheming. They must exhibit a comprehensive front of peaceful, political, cultural, social, economic and, above all, civic resistance in the face of foreign dictates.
Such resistance is necessary and urgent, but not sufficient. In this ever-changing Middle Eastern region, Lebanon today, more than ever before, needs the firm support of friendly countries, with France and Saudi Arabia at the forefront. These countries should use their international influence to push the obstructionist states to “talk some sense” into their protégés, namely the local forces deeply entrenched within foreign orbits. Safeguarding a pluralistic and liberal Lebanon that is committed to public and individual freedoms and anchored in humanistic values is indeed a necessary step to curb and neutralize factions that thrive on perpetuating a climate of chronic instability and terrorism, not only within the region but also on an international level.
