Sayyed Nassrallah’s apparent endorsement of a popular presidential vote is a clever way to hang on to Aoun without committing to him.
Mr. Nassrallah said many things last evenings that are objectionable, like his blanket defense of the Syrian regime and exonerating it from the killings. But some of the more sophisticated pronouncements he made have to do with internal Lebanese politics.
Mr. Nassrallah made the case to his cheering (and shooting) crowds that in the absence of a compromise, which he said the Syrians would bless, a constitutional amendment allowing direct vote by the people would be a fairer way than the 50%+1 to decide who the next President will be.
To many people, universal suffrage is indeed a fair way to pick a President. But in Lebanon, there’s a reason why the constitution prefers parliamentary elections. In our established sectarian system, the Christian President is selected by a parliament which by law should be half Muslim, half Christian.
That composition hardly reflects demographics on the ground, where Christians have lower birth rates and higher immigration figures. This is why PM Seniora rejected the proposal on the grounds that it institutionalizes the dominance of Muslims over Christians.
Bkirki is against such an amendment too because it could lead down the dangerous road of secularization (the next logical step after universal suffrage would be universal eligibility), and Aoun knows it.
Still, it was a shrewed political move from Mr. Nassrallah who found a way to hold on to his awkward alliance with Mr. Aoun without losing his ability to let go of him when he gets other options.
Hello, my name is Mustapha and I've been blogging about Lebanese society, business and politics since February 2005.
“…In our established sectarian system, the Christian President is selected by a parliament which by law should be half Muslim, half Christian”.
You got the point that so upsets Hassan. And frankly speaking, it’s a twisted unjust system. Hardly a democracy, so promoted by the west. No one knows for sure what are the real demographic stats. May be, it is the most guarded secret in Lebanon. But let’s assume it’s 40% Christians, and 60% Muslims (some will say that in reality it’s 30/70 or even 25/75).
It means that in the Lebanese democracy, a Christian vote is worth 120%, compare to a Muslim vote of 80%.
You hardly can brand this as a democracy, which is usually perceived as one person = one vote.
This is the real Lebanese time bomb.
.
With Racial, ethnic and religious “quotas” built into the political laws of Lebanon – it seems that strife is also built in.
To Insure fairness and representation – do away with these quotas – and build in the need for %’s – meaning that in order to get things done – people MUST work and share with other groups to attain majority
Here we go agian about “sectarian” and democratic politics. If anyone wants referendum then OK…Let anyone holding a Lebanese ID vote..EVERYWHERE around the world. Let’s see if the Hizbo’s foaming mouth extends around the world. Then we’ll see the Madman of Rabiyeh attack the Moughtareebeen Everywhere… Hassan is a joke. Accuse Israel and absolve Syria? No logic at all. . Also it clears Syria of all future murders…
We already have suffrage. We elect our representatives.
Amir, Lebanon is a nation of minorities. I don’t care which community has the numerical upper hand. the fact remains that EVERY single “political” party in Lebanon remains a party NOT with a clear political/social agenda, but rather a PURELY ethnic/communal one. The PPS is overwhelmingly Greek Orthodox, the PSP is exclusively Druze, the Najjadah, Murabitoun etc.. are purly Sunni, Amal and Hizballah are Shitite with an Iranian flavor, the Baath in its “Iraqi” predilections is Sunni, the one with the Syrian bias is Alawite, the Kataeb are exclusive Christian etc…….
So there you have it, Amir! When politics and political movements in Lebanon become concerened PRIMARILY with universal-national social issues, instead of being the sanctuary and armor of specific minority groups, THEN we can begin talking about about 1-wo/man 1-vote universal sufferage kind of exercise. When certain “political” (really ethno-religious) formations cease attempting to dissolve Lebanon and melt it into some whacko regional entity that answers to their racialist preferences (Arabic, Islamic etc…), THEN, and ONLY THEN, can HizbAyreh begin preaching about universal sufferage.
Until that happy day dawns, Lebanon remains a nation of minorities, and the sectarian system remains the ONLY protector of minority rights and the only mechanism for concensus-building among minorities (where, for instance, a fascistic formation like HizbAyreh would be precluded from taking the helms by the others….. AND RIGHTLY SO.)
This IS democracy, Amir.
snake, you suck!
Jake, you suck too
Snake you got no idea what you’re talking about. All that waffle means nothing. The fact remains: if there was a democracy in Lebanon Nasrallah would be president. Don’t give us all that crap about “Iranian” flavour. If the Shiites want to live like they live, then so be it. Good for them and good on them as well.
And Nasrallah not only would be president – but a president with resolve, promise, clear intentions and an honest policy not prone to bribes and corruption. That”s what you call a man – not someone like the current prime minister who cries when Israel attacks
Pingback: Compromise Compromised | The Beirut Spring, a Lebanese Blog