March 8 vs. the president
The war against the institutions
One year into the presidency of Michel Sleiman, and two weeks ahead of the parliamentary elections, March 8 has launched a fierce campaign against the president, accusing him of betraying his consensus role and interfering in the campaign. With foreign backing of Sleiman mounting, as western powers increasingly view him as a symbol of the constitution and state institutions, it seems that March 8 has something else in mind.
The escalating rhetoric Hezbollah officials and their Christian ally MP Michel Aoun have been deploying against the president lately cannot bode well for what is coming after June 7. Calling May 7 a “glorious day” in the history of the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon and attacking the president for doing his job raise concerns of Hezbollah’s vision of the future of the country.
Indeed, all Sleiman did was, for the first time, exercise his constitutional authority during last week’s cabinet session by calling for ministers to vote on administrative appointments. All 11 March 8 ministers refused to vote, using the veto power granted to them at Doha last year, and the appointments were not made.
March 8 wanted the appointments to be part of a complete package that would include the state budget and the Constitutional Council appointments, but only in such a way, of course, that would advance their agenda. When Sleiman refused to go along with their demands, the campaign started.
This only means one thing: Sleiman has to either adopt the role of former President Emile Lahoud and support Hezbollah in everything, or he will be attacked. State institutions cannot call the shots, unless they fall under Hezbollah’s control.
Not new
The campaign against Sleiman is not new. When he was suggested as a consensus candidate following the six months when Lebanon had no head of state, Aoun, who was March 8’s main candidate for the post in 2008, suggested the election of a president for a two-year transitory period, during which parliamentary elections would take place. Then, the new parliament would elect a new president.
It is no secret that Aoun’s presidential ambitions remain undiminished, and that he and his allies have consistently attacked the centrist candidates, often affiliated with Sleiman. Still, the last bomb triggered by former MP and Kesrouan candidate Fares Boueiz said it all.
Boueiz informed the president of his back-room negotiations with Aoun, briefing Sleiman on several proposals being studied by Aoun that could lead to the president’s term ending early, Ad-Diyar newspaper reported last week. Boueiz told the president that Aoun had asked him, as well as other candidates who wished to join FPM lists in Kesrouan and other regions, for their full commitment to decisions the former general takes in this regard.
This might include the assertion that Sleiman “s presidency is unconstitutional, as Sleiman didn”t resign his position as Army Commander six months prior to his election, as required by law. Moreover, Hezbollah is thought to have promised Aoun on the sidelines of the meetings in Doha last may that Sleiman “s presidency would be re-assessed in one year before considering other steps toward him.
Although considered a “slip of the tongue” or “a mistake in calculation” by Hezbollah and its allies, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said in an earlier speech that the new parliament would elect the next president of the republic, knowing that Sleiman would witness two parliamentary elections during his term.
Aoun’s dreams were fostered by the exceptional reception he was greeted with when he visited Syria, considered “presidential” by many analysts. On the other hand, Sleiman took firm positions during the Gaza war earlier this year when he expressed support for both UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the Arab Peace Initiative, something that did not go over well in some Syrian and Hezbollah circles. Recently, after Hezbollah’s insistence on the veto power in the cabinet, Sleiman made a clear statement calling the Taif Accord the primary reference that governs the Lebanese, as opposed to the Doha Agreement, reached in the aftermath of the semi-civil war in May 2008.
The spark
Although this campaign against the president is not new, it is more aggressive than ever before. The last cabinet meeting was the trigger that started it all. According to the constitution, the president, in coordination with the prime minister, sets the agenda for each cabinet session. By insisting on a “complete package” and challenging the president’s constitutional authority, March 8 not only stepped over Sleiman, but over the constitution itself.
According to March 8, the president cannot be a consensus figure and also exercise his constitutional authority. Being labeled “consensus candidate” at Doha, the president is expected by Hezbollah to always look for concessions, ones that protect the Resistance and its arms. What the president cannot be, for Hezbollah and its allies, is independent or strong.
Following the cabinet meeting, Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah described Sleiman ’s initiative as a “scheme”, adding that everyone agreed in the Doha Accord that the president should be at equal distance from both camps and try to find consensus solutions. In this sense, Fadlallah considered Sleiman ’s step “outside consensus” and, therefore, unacceptable.
Thus for the opposition it is unacceptable for the president to be president. That’s the title of the post-June 7 phase.
What’s at stake?
In contrast to Hezbollah, Aoun has different concerns. His presidential dreams are the reason for his fears of a centrist bloc, as it would likely decrease his claimed Christian representation.
The hostility of Aoun’s dreams and nightmares, boosted by Hezbollah’s campaign against Sleiman, makes it more difficult for Sleiman to act as a president and exercise his authority. Aoun’s campaign for “the Third Republic” calls for bolstering the presidency; however, his campaign against Sleiman and his right to use the constitution does nothing but weaken the presidency. The scary part is the implications of the campaign. Weakening the president hints at a plan to undermine the state and ensure that after the June 7 elections, Lebanon will remain subject to obstruction and open to all scenarios, “glorious” or not.
However, regional and western leaders who have been supporting Sleiman ever since he was elected still see him as the best channel to deal with Lebanon, whoever prevails on June 7. US Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Lebanon on Friday for talks with Sleiman is a strong indication of this. Therefore, the more he gets attacked, the more international support for him will grow.