Hassane Rifaï

Some will argue that dividing power along sectarian lines, even to an excessive degree, is indispensable in a country made up of several religious communities. But how far can this logic be taken without emptying the parliamentary system of its substance? And, above all, who decided that respect for the National Pact should require the consent of representatives of the three largest communities on matters both major and minor? Paragraph (j) of the Constitution’s preamble states that “No legitimacy is recognized for any authority that contradicts the pact of communal coexistence.” How did this provision come to be interpreted as establishing a mithaqiyya , or principle of communal consensus, granting certain officials a veto over the functioning of institutions?

In Lebanon, we never tire of invoking the Constitution, the Taif Agreement, parliamentary democracy, and respect for institutions. Yet every presidential crisis, every attempt to form a government, and every disagreement among political leaders brings back the same disputes over their respective powers, the same conflicting interpretations of constitutional provisions, and the same deadlocks that we have come to regard as inevitable. Everyone invokes the Constitution when it supports their position and promptly forgets it when it stands in the way of their ambitions. As for the Taif Agreement, some demand its full implementation while defending practices that distort its principles, while others attribute to it provisions or intentions it never contained.