An-Nahar, March 12, 2010

A seminar on Constitutional Amendments at Issam Fares Center for Lebanon

Al Jisr: It is necessary to implement all the clauses of Taef

Daher: Empowering the president to preserve the Constitution

Issam Fares Center for Lebanon organized, yesterday, a seminar entitled “Is there a need for constitutional amendments?”, in which MP Samir Al Jisr and ex-MP Mikhael Daher took part. After giving a presentation to the Director of the Center, Ambassador Abdallah Bou Habib, Daher said: “The system in Lebanon is democratic and consensual, governed by well-defined majorities, and does not allow the exclusion of religious communities from participation in decision-making.” He called for “a mechanism empowering the President of the Republic to preserve the Constitution.

Otherwise, the prerogatives granted to the President will be void of sense.” He also pointed out the “status of the government which is not in harmony with the provisions of the Constitution and which is hindered by the difficulties related to power, as protests and demonstrations”. He called, moreover, “for a constitutional amendment, granting the President of the Republic, the right to consider the non-conventional and non-constitutional government as resigning, since its composition goes against explicit provisions in the Constitution and opens the way for the constitution of another government.” He enumerated a series of amendments, which should fill the gap in some issues, without affecting the conventional prerogatives, “setting a 15-day deadline for the President of the Republic to accept or reject the decrees; otherwise, they enter into force.” He clarified that “this amendment aims at setting a deadline of less than 15 days for the Minister and the Prime Minister.” He also called for the amendment of Article 54 which stipulates that the concerned minister(s) approve(s) the decisions of the President of the Republic. The Prime Minister position has been added, in the Taef, to that of the Ministers. He also called for the amendment of Article 49. He requested to set the quorum of the session for the election of the President of the Republic and to restore the prerogatives to the President of the Republic, empowering the latter to take a well-grounded decision, with the approval of the Council of Ministers, to dissolve the Parliament before the end of its mandate. He insisted on granting the majority plus one of the ministers the right to call for an exceptional session for the Council of Ministers and on answering their needs, consecrating the presence of the Vice-Prime Minister by virtue of a constitutional text, and granting him prerogatives which do not affect conventional issues. He said: “The Prime Minister or ministers are not entitled to paralyze the decisions of the Council of Ministers because these decisions are binding to all. In case the Prime Minister or the Minister is not satisfied with the decision, he is entitled to resign.” Finally, he called for the introduction of amendments, allowing the Constitutional Council to interpret the Constitution.

Al Jisr

Al Jisr asserted, from his part, “the necessity to implement all the clauses of Taef”, recalling that it was not implemented under the Syrian trusteeship.” He deemed that the agreement “was balanced” and drew the attention to the prerogatives of the President of the Republic, that he bears no consequences for undertaking his duties, whereas ministers are held accountable through their revocation or no-confidence motion against them and against the Prime Minister in the Parliament.” He noted that “the Taef did not stipulate a consensual democracy, but a majority-based parliamentary system within a consensual framework”, estimating that “consensus was concretized by equity between Christians and Muslims.”

According to him, “the issue of consensual democracy was raised in order to impair the prerogative of the Council of Ministers to which the procedural authority is transferred,” explaining that “the expression of consensual democracy was adopted by some forces, since it is a guarantee for democracy and a continuity for the upper hand generated by the acquisition of weapons, and constituted a political framework for immunity.” He added “that this concept did not give a solution, but pushed the country into a political mess and a failure to take decisions, especially after deeply examining the discourse about national union governments as a result of consensual democracy.”

He concluded that “adding legitimacy to the table of dialogue means the creation of a new institution which abolishes the prerogatives of both procedural and legislative powers, thus adding a new problem related to authority” and insisted on the fact that this table of dialogue “should not lose its meaning”.