Written by Nasser Kandil,
In dealing with the Lebanese presidential election, a team of politicians, journalist and some of religious competent authorities think that it practices the moral superiority over its opponents, it penetrates the deep feelings of the Lebanese, when it can manage its political game by embarrassing its opponents by calling them to practice the electoral game under the slogan; let the victory be for the luckiest and the loser has to accept the loss with satisfaction. Some of the writers, politicians, and competent authorities participate in this saying thinking that this is the good position which is keen on protecting the political regime which is based on a Lebanese saying that is depending on considering Lebanon a factory of the advanced democracy in this east.
Some owners of this thesis either the faithful or those who practice it as a game in politics forget that Lebanon did not succeed in forming an open framework for its democratic game and liberating it from the sectarian limitation, so assigning the sects of presidencies and sharing the parliament, government and the presidential positions on a sectarian basis despite its free of the democratic criteria just taking into consideration what it called the Lebanese privacy did not succeed in achieving the efficiency and the satisfaction of the requirements of what the Constitution has called in its introduction “any authority cannot violate the Mutual Living Agreement in order to practice the democratic game until the last conditions of the game”. The parliament including the senior Christian leaders are complaining of that the parity has become formal, in addition that the government cannot give the leadership to the game of voting which was described and legalize d by the constitution, so why to suggest what is not possible concerning freeing the democracy from its sectarian mind in the lower levels of presidency can be possible in the presidency?
There is no legitimacy for an authority that contradicts the Mutual Living Agreement, which means in the context of the Lebanese politics that if the government has the important representatives of the Shiite sect, it loses its legitimacy, and if the parliamentary elections which are accepted by all and in which the political movement has the wider representation in the Sunnis sect announces their boycotting, thus their postponement becomes obligatory even if it requires to extend the mandate of the parliament, it is the most far action of the democracy, the parliament which is elected according to the law through which the representatives of the Christians reach without the votes of the Christians is a parliament that its legitimacy and its efficiency are doubtful in protecting the Mutual Living Agreement. According to presidency it means that if the free competitive game does not accept the arrival of a president to the most representative blocs in the main sects, so he has not the necessary legitimacy to lead the country even if he has a law that can authorized his leading to the country, as a representative of the alliance of the winners not because he is the entrusted on the Mutual Living Agreement.
Before electing a parliament according to a law that has the extreme democratic criteria and that the cross-sects Lebanese public opinion accepts its representative legitimacy and its balance in expressing the components of the Lebanese society, and before Lebanon becomes on a bank of regional and international stability around which the Lebanese sects are positioning, and where the wining of a candidate and a loss of another does not constitute a winning and a loss on a opposite sectarian bank, so if the two candidates belong to the same political color while the celebrators of victory do not belong to all the sects and communities, the talk about the easiness of resorting to the ballot boxes becomes an easiness to move toward the sectarian tension, ,and the game of a winner and a loser among the communities. In our current situation it is a national responsibility to say that the president that is not accepted and its arrival is not celebrated at one time by the major blocs in the Lebanese sects is a confrontation project where one team can celebrate the victory, while the important majorities in Lebanese communities feel of injustice and loss.
We have arrived in the presidential course to the point in which must be said that the president who is not accepted by the General Michael Aoun or the Prime Minister Saad Al-Hariri together is just a project of a cold war and a victory and defeat between the communities, and that the equation of Al-Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah and then the bilateral of the Deputy Suleiman Franjieh indicate implicitly to the call for an understanding between Aoun and Al-Harir to make him our president, because we want the presidency a key for promoting the stability not a detonator to blow what is left of it.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,
2016-02-16 | عدد القراءات 1970
