Between the patriarchal throne and the presidential seat, there lies a historical relationship that swings between affection and estrangement, respect and hostility. Between the patriarch and the president, each holds a role of leadership: both have their visions, presences, opponents, and allies. Bkerke existed when Lebanon had no president, and when one eventually came, it did so with its blessing. Since then, it has maintained its presence and influence in the presidential mandate and general politics. However, the 2022 mandate raises serious fears for the patriarchal seat regarding its potential loss and the return of vacancy in Baabda. "The glory of Lebanon has been bestowed upon it." This phrase encapsulates the relationship between Bkerke and Lebanon, where the Maronites played a foundational role, reflecting the vision of founding patriarchs regarding the close link between religious presence and national effectiveness. When Patriarch Elias Hrawi went to Paris preparing for the declaration of Greater Lebanon, he did not announce the Maronite patriarchate's entry into political affairs; rather, he cemented its leadership position, continuing the roles played by Maronite patriarchs and bishops in public affairs. The writings of Patriarch Estephan Douaihy in "The History of Times" and Archbishop Youssef Debs in "The Secular and Religious History of Syria" concerning relationships with notable figures and a description of the political situation demonstrate this ongoing intersection between the Church and public affairs. In 2006, the Maronite Patriarchal Synod established this space of historical transformations from before the creation of Greater Lebanon up to 2005.
Although Bkerke is neither the first nor second voter in the presidential mandate, its role in relation to the presidency or the president—based on their political identity and their allegiance to Lebanon's freedom and independence—is fundamental in reading the transformations from the mandate and independence to today. Bkerke has always asserted that it is with the presidency, not with any particular president. Its connection to the presidency arises from both vying for Maronite leadership. No matter the strength of the patriarchs or the differing identities of the presidents, there is a Maronite leadership from Bkerke that it has never relinquished to the presidency. Sometimes, it stands in support, and at other times, it opposes, but it has never been subordinate to it. It stands alongside the presidency and does not oppose the conflicts among presidents without making the presidency a pawn in turbulent winds and disputes. Hence, its stance has been firm against the potential vacating of the presidential seat; it has not accepted the forced departure of the president from the palace, despite advising the involved presidents to end their terms to ease tensions, nor has it accepted extensions for presidents, especially during the Syrian presence phase.
The late Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir consistently affirmed that Bkerke does not interfere in the details of political life but takes a national stance. However, this national position often expanded to encompass many fundamental issues. Bkerke voiced its position on election law since independence. When President Bishara al-Khouri was preparing with his government to change the election law, Catholic patriarchs, led by Patriarch Antoine Arida, submitted a memorandum to the president, which Khouri considered as having a “sectarian tint.” From Arida to Sfeir, whose stance on the election in 1992 led to a Christian boycott, opposing vehemently the election law known as the "Ghazi Kanaan Law," and supporting—before the assassination of President Rafik Hariri—the 1960 law, which he referred to as "the law of the judiciary" and deemed the best, only to later be convinced before the Doha Agreement that it was no longer beneficial, leaving political leaders to search for a "convincing" law.
Sfeir may be the only patriarch who intervened directly in the presidential mandate during the most intense and difficult political phases, explicitly naming candidates under French pressure and earlier American attempts towards the end of President Gemayel's term. Nonetheless, this did not prevent Bkerke from being present at every mandate. Some religious institutions stood alongside presidents, such as the Lebanese Maronite Order during the election of President Bashir Gemayel and the Antonine Order siding with General Michel Aoun since the 1990s.
The relationship between Bkerke and the presidential office goes beyond the traditional visits made by Maronite presidents to the patriarchal seat upon their election or during official Christian holidays. The intertwined relation between these two Maronite positions—religious first and civil first—has seen periods of warmth and periods of tumultuous conflict, often influenced by the personalities of the patriarch and the president, leading to clashes with bishops and clergy who traditionally stood with the patriarch, albeit sometimes reluctantly.
President Bishara al-Khouri was known for his hostilities towards several church figures, from Patriarch Antoine Arida, who opposed him before ultimately blessing his renewal, to Archbishop Augustin Boustani (who wrote about "on the palace shoulder, two bearers: the seat holder and the house owner," the archbishop who had animosities with the constitutionalists and Mrs. Nazira Jumblatt), to Archbishop Ignatius Mubarak (who Khouri noted in his memoirs was not far from the Vatican's decision regarding Mubarak and his removal, denying any relationship with the apostolic committee assigned by the Vatican to supervise the patriarchate’s tasks). When Khouri was elected president in 1943 and re-elected in 1948, Arida was patriarch and was sharply critical of Khouri, particularly after the appointment of Paul Maouchi as head of the apostolic committee with Archbishop Abdullah Khouri, both relatives of Khouri.
The most intense conflict involving a patriarch was that of Patriarch Paul Maouchi with President Fuad Chehab and before that with President Camille Chamoun, who opposed him fiercely and stood against him at the end of his term. They exchanged animosities for years, and Maouchi did not support any attempt for Chehab's renewal. President Charles Helou, who was close to the Church, provided a comfortable space in their relationship. President Sleiman Franjieh's term coincided with the beginning of the war and the election of Patriarch Mar Antonios Butros Khreish. The circumstances of the war played a role in reducing Bkerke's influence amid three powerful Maronites: Camille Chamoun, Pierre Gemayel, and Raymond Edde. Following Khreish's resignation and the election of Sfeir, after a period during which Archbishop Ibrahim Halou assumed the responsibilities of apostolic administrator for the Maronite church, a new era in the relationship between Bkerke and the presidency began.
The most politically enriching experience with the presidents and all the mandates from the Taif Agreement until the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon was with Sfeir over 25 years, starting when Patriarch Maouchi appointed him as patriarchal vicar in 1961. He witnessed the presidencies of Chehab, Helou, Franjieh, Sarkis, Bashir Gemayel, and when he was elected patriarch in 1986 until his resignation in 2011, he entered politics expansively, playing a crucial role alongside President Amin Gemayel, the transitional government headed by General Michel Aoun, then with the election of President Rene Mouawad and his assassination, Elias El-Hrawi, Emile Lahoud, Michel Suleiman, until witnessing Aoun's election as president during the pontificate of Patriarch Bcharra al-Rahi. Sfeir experienced the first and second presidential vacancies and the repercussions of the vacancy of the presidential seat, and his name became linked with attempts to fill the void through parliamentary meetings held in Bkerke before the end of President Amin Gemayel's term and the ensuing equation of "Mikhail Daher or chaos," followed by an assault on him in Bkerke by supporters of General Aoun. The most dangerous episode was the second vacancy with the departure of President Emile Lahoud from Baabda Palace, accompanied by a French request for a list of candidates to fill the void. However, the list collapsed, and the vacancy occurred before President Michel Suleiman was elected in 2008, only to witness again, after Suleiman's resignation, the vacancy that followed his term.
Most importantly, Sfeir endured the periods of extension for Presidents Elias El-Hrawi and Emile Lahoud, describing what was happening as an appointment of the President of Lebanon. He attempted to "absorb" the two presidents: the first one, arriving in accordance with the Taif Agreement that he later defied, causing Sfeir to raise his voice against the practices of the troika and the Syrian regime; the second sought not to collide with him from the outset. However, Lahoud was cautious; he did not visit Bkerke protocol-wise as was customary for presidents after their elections, but visited later during Christmas. Yet, the ice did not break. Sfeir opposed the constitutional amendment and criticized the actions of the Lahoud and El-Hrawi administrations in terms of security, politics, and economic vision while covering violations against the opposition. However, he refused in 2005 to oust Lahoud by force, despite the opposition's objections. Notably, Sfeir later sent his deputy, Archbishop Roland Abou Joudeh, to convey an invitation to Lahoud for him to take the initiative to step down from power, later revealing that he had sent multiple messages to Lahoud urging him to relinquish power, which the president ignored.
With the ascendancy of al-Rahi to the patriarchate, a notable shift occurred in the role of the Maronite Church. He came during Suleiman’s presidency, navigating the vacancy up to the election of General Michel Aoun. He was the one who gathered the four Maronite leaders at the beginning of his tenure, brought together the Lebanese Forces and the Marada party, and blessed Aoun's election, calling for the mandate to be conducted without delay while refusing any attempts for Aoun to stay in Baabda Palace. However, Bkerke resides at a significant turning point between an ending presidency and another that is uncertain, between the Taif system that it supported and a system looming on the horizon, preparing to voice its opinion on it. Recently, al-Rahi expressed his fear of sidelining the Maronite role from power through attempts to disrupt the presidential mandate. This position is the culmination of months of anxiety, communications, and discussions with Maronite personalities. The fear is not just a warning but arises from information regarding the inevitability of a vacancy. Therefore, he raised two fundamental premises in dealing with the presidency: urging the necessity of holding elections on time and steadfastly adhering to the Taif Agreement and international resolutions. Bkerke, which had called for a new social contract, has for some time insisted on upholding the Taif Agreement and advocating its implementation. Although it is keen on holding presidential elections, it has not and will not engage in naming presidential candidates. While several Maronite political, security, and banking figures present themselves as orbiting around Bkerke and close to al-Rahi, who supposedly endorses them, it is true that names have been presented to al-Rahi, but he has yet to endorse any of them; rather, he remains committed to the principle of holding elections, as they are genuinely under threat. The question lies in Bkerke's next step after raising its voice as a warning and how it will act after October 31 if elections are not held.
