Meanwhile, the nation’s representatives were working hard, interpreting the Lebanese constitution in a manner that serves the interests of their respective political parties and leaders. (Photo: Marwan Tahtah)
On Monday afternoon, July 1, downtown Beirut appeared more like a military zone. Internal Security Forces (ISF) and army soldiers, brought in as security reinforcements, outnumbered civilians. Soldiers blocked all possible pathways to the parliament building, closing them to pedestrians who now could only enter through Omari Mosque Street.
Meanwhile, a few meters inside, the nation’s representatives were working hard, interpreting the Lebanese constitution in a manner that serves the interests of their respective political parties and leaders.
Although the area was not as quiet as the security forces would’ve liked it to be, there were much fewer activists protesting the extension of parliament’s term in Riad al-Solh Square this time, compared to a few weeks ago. The soldiers and police looked relieved at having been spared the need to clash with protesters.
Just like Riad al-Solh, the parliament building was also quiet and eerily empty, in contrast to the “ruckus” that took place when parliament convened in May to extend its own mandate. The reason: the sharp dispute over extending army chief Jean Kahwaji’s term.
Only a small number of MPs (and a smaller number of reporters) came to the session that was intended to approve the extension. There were no surprises, and, as expected, those present failed to assemble the quorum needed to hold the session, with the Change and Reform, Future Movement, Phalanges, and Lebanese Forces blocs boycotting – each bloc for its own reasons.
As usual, Speaker Nabih Berri was busy peddling legal buzzwords to stress the constitutionality of the session. He stuck close to his office in the morning, listening to the pontifications of various MPs on the constitution. Less than half an hour after the original time Berri had scheduled the session, it was adjourned to July 16, 17, and 18.
Berri postponed the session that was meant to discuss an agenda of 45 items. However, all these items will now be discarded because of the ninth item that is at the heart of the dispute, namely, amending the legal retirement age for officers in the post of army commander or chief of staff, and for directors in the ISF, General Security, and State Security – an amendment initially proposed by Future MP Hadi Hobeich.
But when he submitted the amendment, the Future MP did not know that it would not include his camp’s top security man, Maj. Gen. Ashraf Rifi, whose term has expired. This was enough for Future to retract its support for the extension Kahwaji’s term.
This much was clear on Monday, July 1, albeit no one said it explicitly. The Future MPs looked content in Parliament Square. They spoke a little bit about the session and the debate over whether it was constitutional, but spoke at length about Hezbollah, and its alleged involvement in the Saida clashes and the Syrian conflict.
At the same time, Berri was holding successive meetings with caretaker PM Najib Mikati and March 8 MPs who attended the controversial session. These meetings gave Berri the chance to reiterate his position, reaffirm the constitutionality of his calls for parliament to legislate, and to continue contacts with all factions to ensure future sessions would convene.
Sources closer to the speaker said that he was deeply discontented with what he called Mikati’s “about-face,” since the latter had previously declared that there would be no need for a special decree to hold an exceptional session of the parliament. However, according to the same sources, this does not mean that Berri was surprised, and said that the speaker has grown accustomed to Mikati playing the “Sunni card” whenever he needs to outbid the Future Movement, especially in Tripoli, Ashraf Rifi’s hometown.
Before the session was adjourned, nothing noteworthy took place. Everyone just parroted their already known positions, including Mikati, who, after meeting with Berri, said that he would not sign a decree for the parliament to hold an exceptional session, as he “refused to create an additional problem in the country.”
Mikati declared his support for a plenary session that would only address urgent issues, but not have a full agenda, adding that the executive branch is incomplete because of his resignation.
The response to Mikati’s statements came quickly. Minister Nicolas Fattoush was the first to react, stating, “The president of the republic and the resigning prime minister cannot sign a decree to hold an exceptional session of the parliament, because a decree does not supersede the constitution.”
Nor did Hezbollah and Amal MPs remain silent. Even Minister Ali Hassan Khalil, who usually refrains from making statements in Parliament Square, spoke. “Some, including Mikati, are repeating claims that ignore the legislative powers of the parliament, which was never governed by on-demand edicts,” he said. This was echoed by the head of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc MP Mohammad Raad, who accused some parties of seeking to “undermine the Taif Accord by taking the country toward chaos.”
Only MP Michel Aoun, head of the Change and Reform, did not beat around the bush: He boycotted the session outright, despite its constitutional validity, without summoning false pretexts.
By contrast, Future claimed its boycott of the session was due to “exceptional circumstances that mean a session with only urgent items on its agenda can be held.”
As concerns Mikati, it is possible that his acts are in response to what he believes was a coup by Berri and Druze MP Walid Jumblatt, back when he resigned. According to a March 8 MP, “Just like the extension of Rifi’s term had terminated the government, the parliament’s work has been disrupted for a similar reason.”
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
Meanwhile, a few meters inside, the nation’s representatives were working hard, interpreting the Lebanese constitution in a manner that serves the interests of their respective political parties and leaders.
Although the area was not as quiet as the security forces would’ve liked it to be, there were much fewer activists protesting the extension of parliament’s term in Riad al-Solh Square this time, compared to a few weeks ago. The soldiers and police looked relieved at having been spared the need to clash with protesters.
Just like Riad al-Solh, the parliament building was also quiet and eerily empty, in contrast to the “ruckus” that took place when parliament convened in May to extend its own mandate. The reason: the sharp dispute over extending army chief Jean Kahwaji’s term.
Only a small number of MPs (and a smaller number of reporters) came to the session that was intended to approve the extension. There were no surprises, and, as expected, those present failed to assemble the quorum needed to hold the session, with the Change and Reform, Future Movement, Phalanges, and Lebanese Forces blocs boycotting – each bloc for its own reasons.
As usual, Speaker Nabih Berri was busy peddling legal buzzwords to stress the constitutionality of the session. He stuck close to his office in the morning, listening to the pontifications of various MPs on the constitution. Less than half an hour after the original time Berri had scheduled the session, it was adjourned to July 16, 17, and 18.
Berri postponed the session that was meant to discuss an agenda of 45 items. However, all these items will now be discarded because of the ninth item that is at the heart of the dispute, namely, amending the legal retirement age for officers in the post of army commander or chief of staff, and for directors in the ISF, General Security, and State Security – an amendment initially proposed by Future MP Hadi Hobeich.
But when he submitted the amendment, the Future MP did not know that it would not include his camp’s top security man, Maj. Gen. Ashraf Rifi, whose term has expired. This was enough for Future to retract its support for the extension Kahwaji’s term.
This much was clear on Monday, July 1, albeit no one said it explicitly. The Future MPs looked content in Parliament Square. They spoke a little bit about the session and the debate over whether it was constitutional, but spoke at length about Hezbollah, and its alleged involvement in the Saida clashes and the Syrian conflict.
At the same time, Berri was holding successive meetings with caretaker PM Najib Mikati and March 8 MPs who attended the controversial session. These meetings gave Berri the chance to reiterate his position, reaffirm the constitutionality of his calls for parliament to legislate, and to continue contacts with all factions to ensure future sessions would convene.
Sources closer to the speaker said that he was deeply discontented with what he called Mikati’s “about-face,” since the latter had previously declared that there would be no need for a special decree to hold an exceptional session of the parliament. However, according to the same sources, this does not mean that Berri was surprised, and said that the speaker has grown accustomed to Mikati playing the “Sunni card” whenever he needs to outbid the Future Movement, especially in Tripoli, Ashraf Rifi’s hometown.
Before the session was adjourned, nothing noteworthy took place. Everyone just parroted their already known positions, including Mikati, who, after meeting with Berri, said that he would not sign a decree for the parliament to hold an exceptional session, as he “refused to create an additional problem in the country.”
Mikati declared his support for a plenary session that would only address urgent issues, but not have a full agenda, adding that the executive branch is incomplete because of his resignation.
The response to Mikati’s statements came quickly. Minister Nicolas Fattoush was the first to react, stating, “The president of the republic and the resigning prime minister cannot sign a decree to hold an exceptional session of the parliament, because a decree does not supersede the constitution.”
Nor did Hezbollah and Amal MPs remain silent. Even Minister Ali Hassan Khalil, who usually refrains from making statements in Parliament Square, spoke. “Some, including Mikati, are repeating claims that ignore the legislative powers of the parliament, which was never governed by on-demand edicts,” he said. This was echoed by the head of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc MP Mohammad Raad, who accused some parties of seeking to “undermine the Taif Accord by taking the country toward chaos.”
Only MP Michel Aoun, head of the Change and Reform, did not beat around the bush: He boycotted the session outright, despite its constitutional validity, without summoning false pretexts.
By contrast, Future claimed its boycott of the session was due to “exceptional circumstances that mean a session with only urgent items on its agenda can be held.”
As concerns Mikati, it is possible that his acts are in response to what he believes was a coup by Berri and Druze MP Walid Jumblatt, back when he resigned. According to a March 8 MP, “Just like the extension of Rifi’s term had terminated the government, the parliament’s work has been disrupted for a similar reason.”
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.