[ad_1]
Hiyam Al-Qasifi wrote in the Al-Akhbar newspaper:
A veteran politician described the day Prime Minister Saad Hariri was designated as one of the most dangerous days Lebanon has ever experienced. The danger does not lie in the assignment of the man as a person in his own right, nor in the theme of the Charter as a motto, but in the sharp division that surrounded his assignment, and recalled the stage of Syrian existence. Those who called out Hariri were actually Syria’s allies in Lebanon: the Future Movement, the Amal Movement, the Progressive Socialist Party, the Marada Movement, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, and individual personalities who were known for their relationship with Damascus. and, to some extent, the Tashnak block. Isn’t this the same scenario that Representative Bahiya Hariri found herself in, in which she said in 2005: “We will not say goodbye to Syria, but to the meeting”? Isn’t it an implementation of what happened in Koreytem in the same year after the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri of the pressure exerted by those close to the deceased on his successor for lack of political commitment to Christian parties, and the satisfaction of drafting agreements firm with the bilateral Shiite and socialist?
On the other side of the mandate, and for various reasons, Hariri did not name the Christian political forces, whose leaders are no longer in prison or in exile, unlike what happened during the days of Syrian existence. As for Hezbollah, it took an absorbing step, absorbing the gravity of what is happening, but did not name it either. It is true that there are understandings between them in the way of the transfer, but the party, despite its deficiencies in the performance of the Free Patriotic Movement in the final moments, is willing not to let things go and has not made a decision that perpetuate the sharp break with your “Christian” ally and political constituencies, leaving The Road is Open to accommodate author inquiries and limit the damage that has occurred thus far.
Certainly, there are varying responsibilities for what happened from 2005 to today, and since the election of President Michel Aoun. Christian forces used to invoke the Syrian presence and pressure in the 1990s, in exchange for control from other powers. Today, however, it is effective again without yielding to the influences of Syria and its allies, and the national movement in particular has been in power for four years. Any mistakes she made on the way to besieging herself, and she made this lineup with her back turned to her intensity. The movement’s biggest mistake could be that it is not part of the Pact. In the sense of absolute discrimination between them, so the presidency of the republic is completely independent as an action and as a location, which does not expose it to vibrations, as is the case today. This issue, if addressed today, could be an occasion to touch the Christian street, which the demonstrations of October 17 have shown, that at least a third is no longer in the hands of these parties, so that the segment that has been received a part of the internal targeting, economic and financial collapse, and political exclusion, and the presidency of the republic was reinstated. Regarding the parties, no matter how high their status, they do not become a stick figure because of their identification with the party and vice versa. However, as much as the errors of the two most represented Christian forces, that is, the current and the forces, may affect the style and form of what they have achieved, we can strategically speak of an intersection between the transformation of the restoration Hariri al Serail for a party, and the renewal of the electoral law.
In the midst of a financial and economic crisis and the repercussions of the port explosion, the president of the parliament, Nabih Berri, could not find a more appropriate time to call for the discussion of a new electoral law. His call coincided with Hariri and Jumblatt’s television appearances, and their coherent speeches on a new electoral law. This harmony is not surprising (noting that Hezbollah is once again moving away from its focus) because the same team that appointed Hariri was the one that started the day after the 2018 election results are talking about the need to prepare a new electoral law. These results enshrined the separation between Hariri and the forces, and the resentment of Berri and Jumblatt towards the current and the forces together, because the net participation of Christians in parliament increased in number and doubled, at the expense of the deposits to which they other blocks wanted to join, according to a law that these blocks sought for themselves. And the effects of these results, as experience later showed, by granting Christian forces a greater role in the articulations of the State, sometimes with rams and others, with a wide margin of independence for these forces, and a greater inclination to extremism or even to ‘intransigence’ in sensitive joints, showed the need to revise the electoral law. Bilateral settlements and circumstantial alliances between Christian parties and their allies did not deteriorate until after the elections, and with direct influence, as happened, for example, between Hariri and the movement during the formation of the second Hariri government during the era of Aoun. Isolating the tactical and circumstantial performance of the Christian forces that exhausted the allies and opponents, and the change in the focus of the current and the forces in particular, and the change in their leadership style, which recovered their presence and radiance after a period of decline, the level of deterioration of the relationship of the other blocks with it is based mainly on what happened in 2018. It satisfies the other blocks that have taken the path of changing the electoral law, after they managed to reunite them. The challenge lies in Hezbollah’s position in the forefront of any new law, and in the way the movement and forces approached government formation and electoral law together, knowing that words spoken about increasing intensity show their earliest. signs after they experience growing popular resentment for attempts to isolate them, trying to profit from it in the pressure. And turn up the volume. Although the question remains, did they benefit from the experience of past years or did they repeat the same old mistakes?
[ad_2]
