I don't want to be repetitive, but like I said earlier: The opposition doesn't acknowledge the legitimacy of the government, thus, discussing the electoral law in the government and sending it to the parliament is irrelevant. Now let's say the government discussed the law, made modifications that the opposition judged to be to the favor of Feb 14th. Now the draft is sent to the parliament for approval. Would Berri open the parliament? That's a vicious circle. The blame goes on both.
good point. So how can we get out of this dilemma?
But if we take a path down memory lane, we return to the time of presentation of the Boutros law to the gov. There was a one month deadline to discussing the law in the gov before taking it to parlement. back then, at that time, parlement was still open, and Berri hasn't closed the doors yet.
So excuse me chafic if I disagree with u on blaming both. If we take what I just said into consideration, the fault lies completely on 14 feb.
Anyway, seeing I brought up the one month dealdine matter, is it still feasable to present the Boutros law to parlement since the deadline has long passed?
Quote:
As for the part in bold, if the law was voted in the parliament, early elections don't necessarily have to follow. The two matters are not related.
I know they are not related. But in reality, if a new electoral law is put forward and voted for, then the majority will be in a pickle if they refuse early elections.They will seem like they prefer Ghazi ken3an's law over everything else. Even now, they are still acknowledging the 2000 law to be bad, so they will have no excuse for early elections if a new electoral law is put forth.
Quote:
Well, that's democracy, and it brought the corrupt to the power. You will have to count on the Lebanese people not to vote for them in the next round of elections (If you're proposing a better alternative). And if they are violating laws or the constitution, go to the courts.
seriously, what courts? the judicial system is a part of the corrupt system.
by the way, it's not an "if", it's a fact. Many examples come to mind, the dissolvement of the CC for instance.
Quote:
I think it's very unlikely to get a president voted with 1\2+1, but, if that happens, what plan of action do you propose Vegojimbo? Furthermore, why don't the opposition MPs attend the parliamentary session on the election day?
what do I propose? I have no "democratic" solution to the problem.
Now, regarding the opposition MPs attending the session, it's their right not to participate. It's their right to "sabotage" the presidency election if they don't feel convinced in letting 14 feb elect a president from their own rank. The 2/3 quorum was put for a reason, and not just for show. it was put so that the president actually represents the majority of the lebanese. Granted rarely did a lebanese president represent the majority of the lebanese, but the 2/3 quorum si still there and can still be used.
Can u chafic tell me why should the C&R bloc MPs for example attend the session so that 14 feb elect a non-representative president?
by the way, this unlikely is very likely. Just listen to SG and WJ. They are preparing themselves to elect a president with the 1/2 quorum. One is justifying a future use of weapons under claims of self-defense from the armed FPMers and the other is threatening all "allies" who might defect of treason and grave consequences (murder????)
Quote:
Like I said earlier, it's very costly option:
1- You're compromising the impartiality of the army, and exposing it to danger.
2- You're breaching the rules of democracy
3- You're putting the stability and security of the country to danger
Regards
I think it's a comparative issue. It's costly, but less than the electing a president with the 1/2 +1 quorum.
good point. So how can we get out of this dilemma?
But if we take a path down memory lane, we return to the time of presentation of the Boutros law to the gov. There was a one month deadline to discussing the law in the gov before taking it to parlement. back then, at that time, parlement was still open, and Berri hasn't closed the doors yet.
So excuse me chafic if I disagree with u on blaming both. If we take what I just said into consideration, the fault lies completely on 14 feb.
Anyway, seeing I brought up the one month dealdine matter, is it still feasable to present the Boutros law to parlement since the deadline has long passed?
Vegojimbo,
If I remember well, the draft of the Boutros law was presented to the cabinet in the beginning of June 2006; It was to be reviewed during a month and then sent to the parliament for debate and voting. I think the whole process was prevented by the outbreak of the war with Israel, and then we know the sequence of events.
As for the 1 month period, it was designed for the cabinet to review the law, so I don't think it has something to do with presenting the draft to the parliament, or in other words, I think it's still feasible. (But maybe you need a specialist's answer to that question to be sure).
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegojimbo
I know they are not related. But in reality, if a new electoral law is put forward and voted for, then the majority will be in a pickle if they refuse early elections.They will seem like they prefer Ghazi ken3an's law over everything else. Even now, they are still acknowledging the 2000 law to be bad, so they will have no excuse for early elections if a new electoral law is put forth.
Actually, they seldom mention the law when they justify their refusal to early elections; Maybe voting a new fair law will give them another reason to tell the opposition to wait for 2009 elections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegojimbo
seriously, what courts? the judicial system is a part of the corrupt system.
by the way, it's not an "if", it's a fact. Many examples come to mind, the dissolvement of the CC for instance.
Maybe the judicial system is corrupt, but how often do you hear of any cases presented to the courts? You certainly hear rumors and hearsays, but why no legal actions are taken; and why aren't the cases - if they exist- traced and exposed on the media, instead of the daily nonsense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegojimbo
what do I propose? I have no "democratic" solution to the problem.
Now, regarding the opposition MPs attending the session, it's their right not to participate. It's their right to "sabotage" the presidency election if they don't feel convinced in letting 14 feb elect a president from their own rank. The 2/3 quorum was put for a reason, and not just for show. it was put so that the president actually represents the majority of the lebanese. Granted rarely did a lebanese president represent the majority of the lebanese, but the 2/3 quorum si still there and can still be used.
The constitution is not clear on that matter (quorum), but if we go by precedence, it was previously considered as 2/3 of the members of the chamber should be present.
Nevertheless, the constitution does mention that in a second ballot, 1\2+1 of the members' votes would be sufficient; that means, that a president doesn't have to get the votes of the 2/3 of the members to be elected, or, in other words, it's implied in the constitution that there are cases where the president doesn't get the vote of all the members who are present. That means, it's one of the duties of the MP to be vote for a president, even if he/she's not sure that this latter will win. So to say that it's the right of the MPs not to attend the session because they don't agree on the majority's candidate is a "Right" is not very accurate; If that was the case, it would have been mentioned in the constitution that a minimum of 2/3 of the votes of the total number of MPs is necessary to elect a president.
Therefore, I would rather call that an option for the opposition rather than a "right".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegojimbo
Can u chafic tell me why should the C&R bloc MPs for example attend the session so that 14 feb elect a non-representative president?
At this point, I wouldn't say they should or should not. Basically, it's one of the duties of every MP to vote, and I think I explained above. Now by looking at the available choices, we have : attending the session and voting a consensual candidate, attending the session and voting a Feb 14th candidate, or the vacancy of the seat. Thus, the "Should"/"Should not" is a decision to be taken by the C&R bloc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegojimbo
by the way, this unlikely is very likely. Just listen to SG and WJ. They are preparing themselves to elect a president with the 1/2 quorum. One is justifying a future use of weapons under claims of self-defense from the armed FPMers and the other is threatening all "allies" who might defect of treason and grave consequences (murder????)
I wouldn't comment on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegojimbo
I think it's a comparative issue. It's costly, but less than the electing a president with the 1/2 +1 quorum.
9th September 2007
