After seven sessions of the House of Representatives that did not lead to the election of a President for the Republic, the vacuum still prevails amid fears that it will be prolonged with the approaching month of holidays, in light of the failure to reach agreement on the name of a candidate, with each party adhering to the specifications it set for the next president. While the Parliament is divided into opposition blocs, not all of which support the head of the “Independence Movement,” Representative Michel Moawad, on the one hand, “Hezbollah” is facing the same crisis within the March 8 team, on the other hand, through the refusal of its ally, the head of the “Free Patriotic Movement,” Representative Gebran. Bassil voted for the head of the “Marada” movement, Suleiman Franjieh, which practically means that the parliamentary majority has not gone to any party until now, in addition to the two-thirds quorum.
As a result of the “Shiite duo” not announcing Franjieh’s candidacy, opposition circles accuse “Hezbollah” and the “Amal Movement” of obstruction, at times in terms of interpreting the articles of the constitution in a way that serves them in terms of securing a two-thirds quorum for each electoral cycle, and at other times in terms of invoking dialogue as a way to agree on universal filter.
In this context, observers say that the lack of names proposed, especially from the March 8 team, is a main reason for the continued obstruction. They add that the “party” and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri want to gather the heads of parliamentary blocs around a dialogue table to agree on electing the president.
Observers consider that while Bassil is obstructing efforts to secure consensus on Franjieh, which strips him of the Christian cover, Hezbollah sees itself benefiting from this obstruction that the Free Patriot is pursuing, first because it wants a president who gives legitimacy to the “resistance”, and this This is difficult to achieve when the “opposition” raises counter-“sovereign” specifications. Observers point out that the “party” is taking advantage of the time factor left by the obstruction, pending Berri’s success in creating the conditions for holding the dialogue. Hezbollah” on the issue of neutrality and illegal weapons.
In the same context, observers point out that the “party” favors the arrival of a strong Christian figure such as Franjieh or Basil who would provide cover for the “resistance”, and this is what it insists on at the present time. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah placed this condition on any candidate in order to obtain the votes of his parliamentary bloc. Observers recall that following the vacuum in the presidency that lasted from 2014 to 2016, Hezbollah did not back down during this period from President Michel Aoun’s candidacy, which prompted 3 parties opposing the current, namely the Lebanese Forces and the Progressive Socialist Party. And the “Future Movement” to the agreement with the “Free Patriot” and the election of Aoun.
From this standpoint, observers confirm that the “party” is investing in lost time, even if it takes a long time, to impose its conditions. As for the previous occasion, no dialogue table was held, but rather a political agreement between Maarab and Rabieh, which led to President Saad Hariri and former MP Walid Jumblatt joining his blessing and electing Aoun.
Observers add that this strategy has proven successful since 2008, through the Doha Agreement, which brought together heads of parties around a dialogue table that resulted in a political settlement that neutralized the issue of “resistance” from political tensions.
On the other hand, observers believe that “Hezbollah” cannot bear the consequences of Bassil obstructing Franjieh’s election forever, as the vacancy in the presidency means the absence of an effective government. Likewise, Lebanon cannot tolerate obstruction in light of the living crisis it has been going through for more than more than a year. 3 years.
Observers ask that if the “Shiite duo” succeeds in holding the dialogue table, will it give up some of its main demands in favor of consensus, or will the dialogue be an extension of the existing parliamentary debate during the presidential election sessions? Observers point out that due to the contradictory specifications set by each side, no dialogue can succeed without everyone making concessions, starting with Bassil and “Hezbollah” all the way to the “opposition”, by first withdrawing the names of Michel Moawad and Franjieh from the presidential debate.
