There is no government with the foreseeable future, while Lebanon is sliding towards a bottomless abyss.
This is what the analysts of the Lebanese scene conclude, with the lapse of 5 months since Prime Minister Saad Hariri was assigned to form the government, after the conflict between him and President Michel Aoun reached a climax, and became more like a counter-coup battle, in the opinion of many, based on defamation of secret correspondence between the two men.
As was expected, the 18th meeting ended yesterday, Monday, with toppling the hopes of the birth of the new government, so Hariri opened from the Republican Palace after Aoun met his political battle, accusing the president of the country of insisting on obtaining the blocking third - that is, a third of the number of ministers plus one - (to his political team headed by his son-in-law Gebran Bassil), revealing that Aoun had sent him a schedule for a squad that he distributed her bags to the sects and parties.
Disclosure of correspondence
This step, Hariri and those who support him politically considered it a constitutional infringement on the prime minister's position, and he unveiled a government formation paper of 18 ministers, which does not include an obstructed third, and does not include the names of partisans, but rather specialized personalities, according to Hariri.
Hariri's nominal list for forming a government of non-partisan specialists, and Aoun rejected it (social networking sites)
The debate between Aoun and Hariri continued, until the correspondence was revealed, after the conflict between the two men took on the character of a challenge on the basis of who remains and who leaves.
Instead of the government being a path to a solution, the mechanism of its formation became an obstacle, and observers saw that it legitimized the country on the governance crisis, following the escalation of the struggle for the constitutional powers of Aoun and Hariri.
Aoun's correspondence with Hariri, attaching every bag he wants with the word "the president" and leaving boxes to fill in with the names of ministers and reference their name (communication sites)
System crisis
The researcher and political analyst, Sarkis AbuZayd, considers that the two men's struggle is nothing but a crust that encompasses the crisis of governance and order, and the problem, according to Abu Zeid, is that the Lebanese system is based on the Taif Agreement, which the political class does not agree to explain clearly in order to appeal to it.
And because the Taif Agreement, signed in 1989, did not specify a deadline for the president in charge of forming the government, and did not clarify the scope of conducting business, meaning that getting out of the crisis has become almost impossible, "amid contradictory interpretations and jurisprudence of the constitution, which does not give powers to the president of the republic at the expense of the powers of the president appointed by the council Representatives, "according to Abu Zeid's interview with Al-Jazeera Net.
The crisis, according to the analyst, is that there is a class of the political class that sought to interpret the Taif Agreement on the basis of “the strongest in his sect monopolizes its representation,” which reflected a defect in the nature of the system that is based on the concept of “consensual democracy,” which means a consensus between the rulers based on two options: If they agree, they will share Power rations, and if they differ, they take the country to the abyss.
Battle of Powers
Academic and political researcher Fadi Al-Ahmar agrees with what Abu Zayd said, considering that the crisis of Aoun and Hariri exceeded the government’s battle of powers, considering that the Taif Agreement, more than 30 years after its signature, may need to be reconsidered, or at least an examination of its application in letter and spirit in its entirety.
The Taif Agreement in 1989, the Lebanese people rely on as a final reference for their national accord after the civil war (communication sites)
Al-Ahmar believes, in his speech to Al-Jazeera Net, that the crisis began before the Taif Agreement, which was based on the imbalance of power, after coming out of the civil war with a loser and a loser.
As a basic example, the academic gives the concept of "political sectarianism", which has not been abolished in implementation of the spirit of the agreement, "because the sectarian atmosphere has reached a level of complexity that impedes the means of abolishing it."
Distribution of roles
The crisis of Aoun and Hariri, according to Al-Ahmar, is fueled by confusion with the constitutional articles first, and giving their differences a second personal character, "especially since Aoun does not want Hariri in the first place, but rather was imposed on him by the push of the Shiite duo."
Even the "apparent" difference between Hezbollah and the Amal movement in the government file - as the party supports Aoun while the Amal Hariri movement supports - the researcher finds a distribution of roles, because the goal of the "Shiite duo" clinging to Aoun and Hariri, as politically strong in their sects (Maronites and Sunnis), is to tighten control Hezbollah over Lebanon.
The relationship between Aoun and Hariri has recently been strained due to the faltering formation of the government (Al-Jazeera)
"If Hezbollah wanted to form a government, it would put pressure on its allies and opponents, but it is waiting for the features of the US-Iranian settlement to mature," Al-Ahmar said.
Impossible coexistence
However, journalist and political analyst Ibrahim Haidar considers that Aoun's conflict with Hariri revives the crisis of the 2016 settlement, which came with the help of the President of Jouhuriya, and Hariri as the Prime Minister, and therefore the two parties want either to be in power together or to come out together.
In addition to the crisis of the system, Haidar believes that the mere acceptance of Hariri's assignment, as he bears a great responsibility, reflects his desire to partner in sharing power shares.
He said that Hariri does not intend to apologize for the formation of the government or the resignation of his bloc from the House of Representatives, and he may resort to the option of open assignment, if he insists on not handing over power to his opponents, and this conflict, according to Haidar, complicates matters, because Aoun's ways of coexistence with Hariri have become impossible.
France is in an awkward position
On Monday, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian announced that he had asked his European Union counterparts to consider ways to help Lebanon, expressing his frustration at the failure of efforts to form a new government.
Here, the question jumps about the fate of the French initiative that French President Emmanuel Macron brought to the political forces after the Beirut Port bombing on August 4, 2020, and subsequently visited Lebanon twice, calling for the formation of an "important" government.
Macron offered the political forces in Lebanon an initiative to solve the political crisis, but it has not succeeded until today (European)
But Fadi Al-Ahmar considers that the French initiative has fallen, because it came to only round the corners, and it is an orphan of any regional and international support, specifically Gulf (Saudi), Iranian and American.
Al-Ahmar believes that France is seeking to convert its French initiative to be European, in order to market it to the Biden administration in Washington, then to the Gulf and Iran, based on the sensitivity of Lebanon's position in the Mediterranean, because it borders Syria on the one hand and Israel on the other hand, and includes about a million Syrian refugees, which makes It is a potentially explosive area, politically and strategically.
"France is in an embarrassing position, and it will not back down, because there is nothing left for it in the eastern Mediterranean but Lebanon," he said.
According to Haidar, the Europeans alone cannot do anything in Lebanon, despite the threat of sanctions, without an American momentum.
Lebanon to where?
Abu Zeid believes that after 5 months of commissioning, the political forces have proven their adherence to sectarian norms that push Lebanon towards ruin.
Haidar considers that the country is sliding into total chaos in the absence of state features, which doubles the risk of insecurity and the absence of Lebanon from the list of international priorities.
Al-Ahmar finds that Lebanon's future picture is bleak, and he expects an accelerated deterioration soon with the successive collapse of the pound against the dollar, and the absence of serious communication with the International Monetary Fund to develop a comprehensive and radical recovery plan.