Mutant Democracy

Democratic forms of government have essentially evolved, over the millennia, to follow one of two forms. There are the presidential systems similar to that in the US or parliamentarian systems exemplified by the German political structure. As is often the case there are a number of other systemic combinations that are characterized by elements of both.

Presidential systems have usually been established to enshrine the principle of the separation of powers between the three branches on which democratic governance rests. The Executive branch in these circumstances is lead by a President who nominates a cabinet to run the daily affairs of governments and to propose laws and policies. These proposals must be approved and voted upon by the legislative branch, the elected represented of the people. It is this separation that acts as to prevent one branch of government from running rough shod over its opposition. The resulting healthy tension between the executive and the legislative tends to lead to compromise and positions based more on the individual merit of the case rather than it pure ideological basis. Obviously an independent and well qualified judiciary makes sure that the constitutional principles and the basic laws of the land are adhered it and that no violations of these principles is allowed to take place.

This principle of separation of powers evolves into a fusion of power under parliamentary systems of governance. The cabinet is headed by a Prime Minister who is usually chosen from among the members of parliament and a cabinet is formed from among the members of the chamber of people’s representatives. In this case the president’s role is rather ceremonial and the ultimate arbiter is the legislative. Although the cabinet is chosen from among the elected members yet it always strives to have the blessings of the majority of the members on its side. The legislative in this case plays just as crucial of a role, through robust debates, as its counterpart in a presidential system. Again the judicial will be impartial and objective in order to ascertain that no branch is abusing its power.

In Lebanon, as is often the case, our system of governance does not belong to any of the forms although it pays lip service to elements of both. The most obvious shortcoming of the Lebanese system is its failure over its more than 65 years of existence to establish a respected, well qualified and independent judiciary. The constitutional rights of citizens will never be protected from various assaults on their integrity without the presence of a powerful and independent judicial branch. As if it is not enough to take away what is arguably the most important guarantee that individuals have Lebanon has managed to come up with another hybrid or should I say mutant. The efforts over the past couple of years have culminated in creating the principle of “national unity” government which is a cover to give the minority the right to veto any and all plans by the majority. That in it would have been a strong enough blow for effective government but that was not enough to satisfy the ambitions of the “opposition”. Diffusion in the current Lebanese system does not end with forming a government chosen from the elected members of the parliament but has even managed in creating a cabinet that is for all intents and purposes a “shrunken parliament”. This new cabinet has in effect emasculated the legislature to such an extent that it does not ever get its approval but it even dictates to it. Decisions arrived at by the cabinet are so sacrosanct that no one in the parliament dares question. Our present iteration of diffusion has resulted in the effective annulment of the legislative branch. A mutant Democracy.


So what has the democratically based Lebanese political structure evolved into? A tower of Babel where the judiciary has no important role to play, an unconstitutionally elected president and a legislature that has willingly abdicated its responsibilities. Welcome to democracy, Lebanese style.

How to lose (elections) through winning and win (elections) through losing

"If we are victorious in one more battle .. we shall be utterly ruined." These words are attributed to King Pyrrhus after he won his battle with the Romans in 279 BC. I imagine that this is the origin of the expression “to win the battle and lose the war”. But we do not need to be students of history in order to understand what is meant by that concept; all what one needs is to have observed the recent parliamentary elections in Lebanon.
The June 7th elections were won by the March 14 coalition and its allies while the opposition was dealt a few set backs in a number of districts. The final tally was 71 parliamentary seats for the March14 coalition and 57 for the opposition, Hezbollah and its allies. In any other country, all over the world, the winners would have proceeded to form the government, elect a speaker of the house and take steps to start implementing elements of their electoral campaign. But not in Lebanon, that would be too simple.
One of the most important figures of the opposition and one of the most strident voices that fought tooth and nail to prevent the Lebanese Parliament from meeting to perform its constitutional function is about to be regaled for the fifth term in a row as the speaker of the house that is under the control of the political parties that he has devoted his life in opposing and obstructing. Sa’ad Hariri has the temerity to endorse the election of the major representative of the opposition to the second highest office in the land. I wonder whether Mr. Hariri or Mr. Jumblatt for that matter, would have had the courage to share that desire with the voters during the campaign.
But that is not the end of the story or should I say the tragedy. Another luminary of the opposition, Michel Aoun, was an active participant in the illegal occupation of downtown Beirut for over a year and a strong supporter of the “novel” idea that the opposition needs to be represented in the cabinet and to give its representatives the right to veto any and all measures that are not to their liking. Mr. Aoun, the megalomaniac that has his party’s OTV station running promos comparing him to Gandhi, MLK, Kennedy, Einstein and mother Teresa to name a few , is back again with another one of his ridiculous demands. This time around he is not asking for a veto but for a cabinet whose composition reflects the exact proportional composition of the parliament. This demand has not been approved yet by the so called majority but if recent history is a prologue then proportional representation will be offered in the same way that the right of veto was agreed to.
And the beat goes on. Hezbollah under the leadership of its war lord Nasrallah insists that its militia is above the law, its area of influence is outside the reach of the legitimate government, its allegiance is to an Iranian Ayatollah and that the concept of an absolute guardianship by the faqih is a religious one. Yet Mr. Jumblatt and Mr. Hariri are more than willing to establish power sharing with Hezbollah, the antithesis of Lebanese statehood, independence and sovereignty.
So the only legitimate question is why did we all vote and what did we vote for? It is all a crock where the winners of the elections are losers and the losers of the elections are winners. Go figure.q5pmfb7dzg

The Lebanese Elections: Begining of the End of Hezbollah Hegemony?

The Lebanese Elections: Beginning of the End of Hezbollah Hegemony?
The official results for the recent Lebanese parliamentary elections have not been announced yet. They are expected to be made public in the next 12- 18 hours. If the unofficial results, widely reported by all parties, are to hold then it is time to loose the spin and look for the real message of this electoral campaign. We could be about to experience a sea change in the governmental structure of Lebanon that will have wide ranging impact all throughout the region.
It is clear that the coalition of March 14 has prevailed. They have maintained their majority by winning, in conjunction with their allies, 71 of the 128 parliamentary seats. The victory is much bigger than what the numbers of seats reflects since these results were accomplished against the obstacles and machinations of Hezbollah, its allies in Lebanon and beyond. The Syrian President , Bashar Assad, and his Iranian counterpart, Ahmadinajad , must be quite displeased about the performance of their Lebanese agents especially that of General Aoun. This victory is so much more impressive in light of the fact that March 14 has managed to maintain its majority under two different electoral setups, 2005 and 2009. It did not seem to make much of a difference which elections system is used, March 14 just wins. The rationale for why that is so is simple and straight forward; March 14 is seen to stand for hope, decency, potential prosperity, individual liberty and above all else a firm belief in the sovereignty and independence of the Lebanese state. The opposition, on the other hand, acted as if the Lebanese state is an after thought, what matters to them were the national interests of Iranian clergy, Syrian Bath and to keep and even increase the size and sophistication of their illegal militia. This militia was used to intimidate the established legal government of Lebanon and was used to drag the country into a war it could ill afford. Furthermore, this military wing is totally financed by foreign powers and established within the country a state within a state including its own unauthorized telecommunication network. Although Hezbollah had no use or respect for the Lebanese authorities yet it asked the loyal Lebanese citizens to support its acts of weakening and dismantling whatever authority the state has. Ironically they expected the Lebanese people to participate in that destructive and undemocratic game. The rhetoric of their allies did not help either. Michel Aoun, one of Hezbollah’s main Christian allies, spent months railing against the old electoral system that he claimed robbed many from choosing their own candidates through gerrymandering electoral districts when in fact he lost in the districts that he helped create and won essentially in the districts that were gerrymandered.
The elections are over and it is time for the newly elected politicians to roll up their sleeves and form a cabinet based on democratic principles. They should waste no time in reforming the election system by adopting a non sectarian system of single districts. That is the only way to give the communities a chance to elect their own representatives and to diminish the stranglehold of the established “feudal” like power of the traditional regional leaders. It would also be very helpful to require the candidate to reside in the district in which she plans to stand for election.
Victory has its own rewards and so March 14 must insist that the majority party should govern and to give a veto power to the opposition is tantamount to desecrating the results of the elections.