Panel approval of Orthodox law divides Lebanese

Beirut: As a democratising society that redefined itself after decades of Syrian occupation, Lebanon’s system of rule was under duress, subjected to new electoral proposals that intended to preserve the status quo.

On Tuesday, parliament’s joint committees approved one of the most controversial proposals, namely the Orthodox Gathering electoral proposition, which stroked sectarianism at its best. Although the draft may not have the necessary votes to pass the required majority in parliament, it nevertheless weakened the system in place, marginalised President Michel Sulaiman who declared his unbending opposition to it, isolated Christian independents who fell outside traditional party groups, and otherwise offered a facile solution — allegedly to correct a wrong that saw the Christian representation in the Assembly undermined.

In theory, the Orthodox Gathering Proposal will now be subjected to an up-or-down vote, although speaker Nabih Berri extended that session by a week to allow parliamentarians the necessary time to settle on an alternative.

The controversial law — which invites the Lebanese to vote for representatives from their own sects only — was supported by a unique congregation, namely the Lebanese Forces, Kataeb, Free Patriotic Movement, Amal and Hezbollah.

What united these parties were their desires to continue current monopolies, precisely to prevent the rise of compromise-prone independents whose mandates hovered around how best to serve citizens rather than cater to insatiable zu‘ama appetites.

Still, there was no unanimity, and the votes may actually not be there for the proposed legislation to survive. Among the Kataeb, for example, Nadim Gemayel and Elie Marouni were on record stating that they would not vote for the Orthodox Gathering Proposal.

Lebanese Forces parliamentarians including George Adwan, a gifted speaker who frequently delves into unclear monologues, and Sitrida Geagea, a charismatic politician who outshines her husband Samir and who is an able compromiser, may not vote for the proposal either.

Dissenting voices were even heard within March 8 bloc, like State Minister Ali Qanso from the Syrian Social Nationalist Party who publicly declared that he could not possibly condone this legislation, because it would “reinforce religious fanaticism and divide Lebanon into sectarian cantons”.

Often neglected, Lebanon nevertheless operated under a Constitution that declares that “any authority that violates the national pact has no legitimacy,” even if few Lebanese adhere to the spirit of the 1943 National Pact. This case might indeed be different, because the most Sunni, Druze, and independent Christians are against the proposal.

Still, what these interminable manoeuvres confirmed was that time was running out to agree on a new legal framework under which elections can be held in early June 2013. Interior Minister Marwan Charbel doubted that such a timeframe could be adhered to, which meant that the choice in front of Parliament was to either choose the 2009 law (an updated version of the unanimously rejected 1960 law), or postpone elections. Under the circumstances, and despite repeated pledges that elections would be held in June, such a likelihood was remote at best.