Does the assignment surprise come from putting the name in PBUH’s custody? Phalanges

Does the assignment surprise come from “putting the name in Aoun’s custody” and the “mandate letter”?

The data indicates that Prime Minister Saad Hariri will be appointed next Thursday, but Lebanon is a “country of surprises.” The surprise may come from the position of the deputies of the Free Patriotic Movement, who will deposit the name of the president in charge to the President of the Republic, General Michel Aoun, to act with him … and the matter that motivated some. Questioning Hariri’s name, or calling him a small percentage of the vote, especially if Aoun chose “to be the winds of Baabda in a way that the ships of the middle house do not want.”

In parallel, it appears that a “new quartet alliance” that includes the Future Movement, the Shiite duo and the Progressive Socialist Party will nominate President Saad Hariri to appoint the next government next Thursday, when the Christians will be “deported”, raising the Mandate letter in case Hariri does not get the votes of the balanced Christian blocs. But it should be noted in 2005 that the so-called “quartet” for the parliamentary elections, the current benefited from it to add broad support and thus enter parliament -for the first time- with a balanced parliamentary bloc.

But at the constitutional level, is it allowed for a representative to place his powers in another party? And the letter?

The name is in the custody of the president.

Former deputy Boutros Harb explained, through the Akhbar Al-Youm agency, that “putting the name in the custody of the President of the Republic” first appeared in 1998, when parliamentary blocks left the name of the president designated in the president’s term. General Emile Lahoud, so they viewed it in a way that did not satisfy the martyred Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. At the time, who protested and considered that the matter contravenes the constitution and that the authority of the representative to nominate is personal, and no one else can be assigned.

Harb considered that regardless of the conflict that occurred at that time, the deputy has the right to put his vote at the disposal of the President of the Republic, and this does not mean that he has the mandate to vote for him. Rather, he says that he voted for the person the president wants, and did not delegate the authority to appoint him. Adding: “But this matter is legal, since the deputy can facilitate the task of the president of the republic to support the person who (the president) deems appropriate to form the government, saying: I do not see that there is a conflict of powers. Rather , the president of the republic has given the possibility of voting for one of the representatives in favor of one of the candidates. Table of national interest “.

Harb said: “Regardless of my opinion on the performance of the president and his team, who are totally opposed to him, I speak according to the constitution.”