Beirut: As expected, Lebanese parliamentarians failed to ensure a quorum on Thursday, as only 73 lawmakers out of 128 were present, thirteen short of the required two-thirds.
Once again, March 8 deputies boycotted the session while the majority of March 14 alliance members were present. Speaker Nabih Berri scheduled a fifth round for May 22 while leading politicians counted on a last-minute solution to avoid a presidential void.
By law, if no president has been chosen by the last 10 days of the incumbent’s mandate, parliament cannot meet for legislative sessions except to elect a new president. That means, starting on Thursday, legislative action will grind to a halt.
Walid Jumblatt, the leader of the Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) and Druze leader lamented the process though he told the pan-Arab daily Al Sharq Al Awsat that there would be “no vacuum but a vacant presidential post until a settlement is reached.”
In a moment of utter candour that confirmed his critical balancing role in the current parliament, Jumblatt said that he “accepted” void at the helm of the country’s top Christian post, allegedly because he could only “provide either March 8 or 14 coalitions with the majority of votes for their candidates but [not] end the lack of quorum.”
Lebanese politicians, including Jumblatt, faced a dramatic riddle that pretended to secure a behind-the-scenes search for consensus even if major differences remained.
The demand that everyone agree on the identity of the next head of state outside of parliament contravened the basic rules of democracy, which — and this was far more dangerous than many seemed to realise — highlighted how dysfunctional the country’s institutions were.
Ten days before a vacancy at Baabda Palace, few felt the urgency to ensure that a president was duly elected by parliament among declared candidates with specific programmes to help govern the many nations that formed this republic.
Observers were shocked at cavalier commentaries by leading parliamentarians who skirted their constitutional duties though that did not seem to be a major concern.
In the event, Jumblatt recognised that Iran and Hezbollah were the two major “voters” in these elections, and that none of the current candidates were satisfactory to the opposition party.
“Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic [of Iran] are two main and essential electors [in the presidential elections],” Jumblatt told Al Sharq Al Awsat, adding that dramatic developments in Syria, where Hezbollah was fully engaged in fighting alongside the Ba’ath regime, would eventually determine who might be electable in Beirut.
Indeed, Hezbollah tenors hammered that there would be no president unless that lucky individual supported the party, which narrowed the pool of potential presidentiables.
Various rumours circulated among the Lebanese that Hezbollah informed everyone concerned that only one of three individuals were acceptable, Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji, Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh and the former minister of foreign affairs Jean Obeid.
The first two required a constitutional amendment to be considered on account of their current positions, while the third was a close confident of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, and whose candidacy was frowned upon by March 14.
All three were deemed potentially safe pro-Hezbollah figures, willing to advance the opposition’s cause, or at least overlook both its deployment in Syria as well as its non-negotiable decision to retain its vast military arsenal.
