Comments on: Why Even Hold Elections?

By: The 10-10-10 Rears Its Ugly Head Again | The Beirut Spring, a Lebanese Blog

The 10-10-10 Rears Its Ugly Head Again | The Beirut Spring, a Lebanese Blog — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:43:34 +0000

[...] Rubbish! Mr. Hariri thundered to his Almustaqbal TV channel yesterday. The opposition is “distributing roles”, between a hardline Aoun who’s insisting on a blocking third, and a “made-in-Syria” proposition (10-10-10) floated by Mr. Berri. The formula, as regular readers to this blog know, is nonsensical. [...]

By: Take A Hike, Moussa! | The Beirut Spring, a Lebanese Blog

Take A Hike, Moussa! | The Beirut Spring, a Lebanese Blog — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:20:53 +0000

[...] Perhaps it was the statement of the French Foreign Minister Mr. Kouchner in Riad where he threatened to go back to the UN in case the Arab League fails, or that of the Egyptian Foreign Minister rejecting the 10-10-10 solution that the opposition craved, or maybe that of the Egyptian President in which he threatened to boycott the Arab summit in Damascus if the Arab League’s Plan fails, or the Patriarch’s Sfeir’s not-so-tacit approval of “internationalization” as the best solution remaining. [...]

By: Bad Vilbel

Bad Vilbel — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:44:37 +0000

+1 to what Tony just said.

This non-democracy is not new, but it also has to be seen within the context of Nassrallah and his vision for Lebanon.

There really isn’t anything surprising here. Not on the opposition’s side. Which is why I don’t understand why some people don’t really get what the opposition is doing. It’s clear as day. Everything Nassrallah and his sides have been demanding fits PERFECTLY into their vision of how things should work. This is no random stuff. It all adds up very easily.

By: Tony

Tony — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:56:18 +0000

Furthermore, this is also in line with Hasan Nasrallah’s vision for Lebanon which I have discussed on my blog in the past. This nullifies the concept of a parliamentary democracy in general. What’s the point, after all, of elections and institutions, if nothing can be settled except through Nasrallah’s acquiescence?

If a majority-minority dynamic is rejected, then you understand what Nasrallah means with his proposals, be they a permanent national unity government, prior agreements before even entering the cabinet (remember that proposal by Hezbollah?), and a “government of poles.” What you then have is a governing council of sorts, with Nasrallah as the “supreme guide” (as I argued in a post on my blog, ultimately Nasrallah seeks to clone structures of the Iranian Revolutionary regime in Lebanon).

Why have electoral institutions anymore?! Why have a parliament then? Why have a cabinet with a voting system on decisions, as stipulated by the constitution? Nasrallah decides how to rule.

By: Tony

Tony — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:15:20 +0000

And by the way, March 14 has already dismissed the 10×3 formula, as has Amr Moussa.

By: Tony

Tony — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:14:32 +0000

You’re absolutely right Mustapha, but you also leave out two other points. This would be the first step towards the “muthalatha” (thirds) option. Second, this would revive the disastrous “troika” formula of the early 1990s. What’s the fundamental issue with that? It reinstates Syria as the arbiter for any (inevitable) deadlock.

Finally, this is in line with the Syrian overriding concern since 2005: March 14 must be denied its majority status (akthariya wahmiyya).

Suleiman Frangieh had made it perfectly clear even before the Arab meeting. He explained that only with the Presidency can they hide behind the 2/3rds issue. After the election, the system is based on an absolute majority. The naming of the PM, the formation of the cabinet, etc. This is all governed by absolute majority, as the Patriarch said.

But Syria didn’t have a chance to kill enough MPs to bring it down to less than 50% +1.

By: Bad Vilbel

Bad Vilbel — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:48:53 +0000

I’ll reiterate what others have already said, for the simple reason that it’s what I’ve been saying all along:

No winner / No loser is NOT democracy. It is the very OPPOSITE of democracy. And it doesn’t work.

You guys are right: We, the Lebanese people allow and tolerate this, and we get EXACTLY what we deserve. We have no one to blame but ourselves. Period.

By: Ace

Ace — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:44:02 +0000

The concept of “Democracy” is not understood in the Mid-East and it can’t be as long as this stupid “no winner/no loser” business prevails. Elections in a Democracy produce both winners and losers.

As long as “intimidation, threats, blackmail, appeasement and the “biggest gun” rule, there can be no real “Democracy”. As always – it is the citizens who ultimately allow this. Fear is what really rules.

By: JAS

JAS — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:31:16 +0000

IMAGINE a Constitution that reads: Representatives “…shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust…”
As writ into the U.S. Constitution on September 17th, 1787.

By: Dania

Dania — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:00:15 +0000

M14 gave in to way too many concessions! They should’ve gone for the 50+1. There can be no compromises cause the opposition doesnt want any. The old formula no winner no loser is obsolete. There has to be a winner and a loser if we’re ever to break this deadlock.