There are rumors that the Lebanese parties in Doha are trying to carve a self-serving electoral law. It is being said for instance that Mr. Aoun is proposing Beirut divisions that allow the Shiaas to vote for the Christians and that Mr. Hariri would love to keep (Christian) Zgharta in the embrace of (Sunni) Tripoli.

That short-sightedness would be a big mistake, as it would be an admission that the Lebanese will never be able to manage things on their own. Every time new alliances emerge between the dominant players, a new Doha will have to be found to carve up a matching electoral law.

The arguments made in Doha should not be about politics. A fairer electoral division, even if it costs March 14 some seats, should not be portrayed as an attempt by the opposition to “harvest their military gains politically”, as Mr. Jumblatt is fond of saying. Mr Ghassan Tueni who embraced the draft law of the Lebanese commission for electoral reform should not feel pressured to follow March 14’s lead and should try to persuade them of the law’s long-term merits.

The electoral law they should be coming up with is one that can last at least another 50 years (where demographic changes could dictate some necessary tinkering and gerrymandering), a law that has enough moral clarity and weight to impose on politicians their electoral platforms. Anything else would be tantamount to treating cancer with an aspirin.

1. 
    

   i just hate it when you use the word should so many times .

   Posted by L. | May 20, 2008, 11:07 am
2. 
    

   Then perhaps you should suggest an alternative word ;)

   Posted by Mustapha | May 20, 2008, 12:13 pm
3. 
    

   I agree with L. People who live in the Land of Should generally have an insufficient grasp of what is and thus fail to ask the question, “Why would the people who have power do what I think they should do?”

   So tell us why, Mustapha, s’il vous plaît.

   Posted by Solomon2 | May 20, 2008, 12:32 pm
4. 
    

   dear Mustapha,

   I agree totally with your assessment. I think it is time to leave the old ways behind and start fresh with a new more democratic process.

   Posted by LeoHalifax | May 20, 2008, 1:48 pm
5. 
    

   “Should” is just a direct, albeit rather plain, approach to speaking one’s mind; anything else will be a convoluted way of making the same point: getting the reader to buy into what you think they should think and do.
   S, but isnt the “why” soo obvious?

   Posted by A-Kara | May 20, 2008, 1:52 pm
6. 
    

   “Obvious”? To me? To M14? To Hezbollah? To Iran? To Syria? The Lebanese people themselves aren’t players in this negotiation, for there are no mobs on the street as happened in 2005.

   Posted by Solomon2 | May 20, 2008, 1:59 pm
7. 
    

   They are all short sighted as usual and make decisions based on past results. The 2000 Law was designed (from what I’ve read) to take power away from Hariri – but it failed to do so because the voters still wanted Hariri.

   If they just have the courage to go with a decent law that is as fair as can be under the bizarre Lebanese proportional system …. the voters will still vote for the candidates they think are best. I’m sure they don’t even consider that there will be many more voters at the polls under a reasonable system.

   The results of the 2005 elections have no bearing on the situation on the ground today. Too much water under the bridge for that to happen.

   Posted by Ace | May 20, 2008, 4:51 pm