The head of the Strong Lebanon parliamentary bloc, MP Gebran Bassil, held a press conference after a meeting of the bloc, stating that yesterday's Cabinet session was unconstitutional, illegal, and non-national. He outlined several points:
1. It undermines the Lebanese formula and disrupts national partnership and balance. Lebanese partnership must either be balanced or not exist. Our free existence and role are more precious than any authority.
2. It effectively abolishes the constitution, leading to constitutional chaos and a fatal blow to the Taif Agreement by those who claim to uphold it. They are killing it while weeping over it.
3. It is a betrayal of a significant national agreement (which was achieved and announced in Parliament) and implicitly endorsed. Our free existence is more valuable than any understanding; it is more important than any defensive strategy.
In brief, what this indicates is that they announced in yesterday’s session that they will issue decrees without the signatures of the president or the entire Council of Ministers, which takes over the president's powers according to the constitution (Article 62). We are facing a republic without a president, without his signature, and without the signature of his deputies. The evidence is the decree presented for signing.
What occurred was nothing less than a coup against the presidency that was premeditated and occurred outside the constitution (until they fill it as they want and impose it).
It confirms that what is fundamentally required from Najib Mikati is not to form a government (this has been communicated to Hezbollah and everyone who consulted with me about our position not to name him—if named, he would not form a government), which he admitted in Parliament on November 3, 2022.
What has happened affirms the hidden agenda to seize power and the country without a president and take his powers. This has been announced by the prime minister in several sessions regarding how the caretaker government intends to exercise the powers of the president in case of a vacancy, as stated explicitly in an official speech in August—that not every minister is a representative of the president.
What has happened constitutionally is a severe blow to Articles 62 and 64, one stating that the government does not exercise its powers if it is resigned, yet it has exercised them excessively and blatantly, disregarding quorum and signing decrees; the other states that the powers of the president transfer agency to the Council of Ministers collectively and not to the government or individual members thereof. They held a Cabinet meeting without it being complete, indeed in the absence of a third of its members.
It is vital to reflect on a practice we adopted from 2014 to 2016 after a long debate, which no one complained about, that in a fully-fledged government, all ministers signed decrees instead of the president, and all ministers reviewed the agenda 48 hours in advance and consulted with the prime minister to add or amend items, as they represent the president. The president shouldn’t be fragmented—as there are powers inherently tied to him that no one can take, like taking the oath before him, and powers related to his position allowing all ministers to sign for him without fragmentation. Thus, it should not be fragmented if ministers disagree; it cannot be, for example, that 16 ministers agree and 8 disagree, so that the president's third is against and two-thirds in favor. All ministers must agree for signing to proceed; otherwise, it cannot proceed. The requirement is for ministerial consensus when it concerns the president, so a Cabinet meeting cannot convene with dissent among its members if it is supposed to be fully empowered.
What has happened nationally is further beyond any constitution, that in a critical national moment and vacancy in the presidency, amid a significant economic collapse in the country, some decided again to exclude a component from the Cabinet, as if taking us back to an era we considered long gone. If someone believes they can take us back to before 2005, to replace genuine representatives with substitutes and think this grants them legitimacy to select a representative for them, and believes that this will solve the country’s issues—this warrants exile, imprisonment, or execution (not less than that) for those who can do it—there will be no return to the pre-2005 state while we are alive!
The era of dominance and hegemony over our political existence has led the state to lose its weight and balance, corroded by corruption, leading us to the collapse we are experiencing. This era is over, and it will not return while we are alive. Our position is strong, especially since we have national partners who have never let Lebanon down or its formula of coexistence—be it the sons of Salam or the sons of Arslan, they have always stood with what preserves the constitution and formula because they are its children and know its meaning and value.
What has happened politically is that there was an agreement after everyone realized that Mikati would not form a government, and that we would not grant him confidence, and that we would not accept convening a Cabinet session as if nothing had happened, that a Cabinet should only convene in exceptional circumstances—a major emergency—and that if all components of the government agreed. And my response was that we inform you now that we will not give our consent, and the response to us was: This is your right.
This was reaffirmed in Parliament, where the prime minister confirmed before everyone that he could not undertake any provocative action—the deception was palpable to those who know him. It is clear that a prior agreement was reached to hold the session; otherwise, Mikati would not dare call for it.
Honestly, our problem is not with Mikati; he is incapable of doing this without his operators—we do not need proof or guarantees about his integrity and credibility. Our problem is with those who have betrayed the agreement (and the promises and guarantees)—and this is not the first time this has happened, at least recently regarding the issue of the expatriates, the parliamentary elections, and the last one being the government.
Who truly believes that the confrontation is with Mikati? The problem lies with those who stated plainly that the Cabinet can convene and that decrees do not need the signatures of all ministers, while they did not accept that before with all the ministers! They are the ones who stopped the Cabinet with full powers, in the presence of a president, over an issue that falls outside of the Cabinet’s powers; they opposed it and decided not to attend the Cabinet meeting, which led the government to stand still for four months.
They are the ones we stood in solidarity with and supported in the streets for two years because the government had withdrawn from it and was undemocratic and alterable. Now, does the government become legitimate with the presence of Saade Chami, Najla Riachi, and George Kallas? Do they really believe so??
Partnership breaks if it’s lame—be it national partnership or party partnership. Many now tell me, Gebran, don’t let our adversaries gloat over us, or they now would be pleased!
This is true, but not at the expense of our existence, role, and freedom. Our role is our weapon—we do not relinquish it except for a greater role for the nation (not a smaller one). It is clear that the goal is provocation and breaking the will. There is a need to undermine the balance that was secured through the struggle of the Free Patriotic Movement and during the term of General Aoun—our balanced partnership in the name of freedom and dignity, and our defense of our free existence is a defense of our lives. We breathe freedom!
And if anyone believes that they are pressuring us regarding the presidency—they should know this does not help... on the contrary, it leads to greater stiffening—we all know that we did not submit to the United States, and we carried the whole world and sanctions in defense of our convictions, and most importantly, for our freedom and that no one imposes upon us anything contrary to our beliefs.
Those who decide to pump Mikati's muscles and throw him into the wrestling ring should rethink their calculations and withdraw because tomorrow—at any moment—he could deflate—with a single phone call from the American treasury...
This will not pass under any pretext, not in the name of stability within the Shiite component, nor in the name of preventing conflict or under the pretext of ignorance or compulsion for the people... Why didn’t people have interests during the four months that the government stopped? And why did people not have interests from May until now when you decided not to form a government? And why didn’t people have interests when decisions that were not passed before the vacancy began to pass now? Why do people not have interests in all the reforms that you refuse to implement?
All solutions are available, and you resort to them whenever you want without authorization or constitution—why are the chronic medications, 50 million dollars a month, being paid? By decisions from the Cabinet or through an arrangement made with the Central Bank?
There are many solutions, including:
First: Each minister acts as a constitutional authority within his ministry, with the possibility of reaching extraordinary decisions due to the exceptional situation, assured after consultation.
Second: Regular decrees (not those issued by the Cabinet) that can be circulated and signed by all ministers instead of the president.
Third: The Parliament is an existing constitutional institution; if there is any urgent and exceptional matter, then it can pass at that time, exceptionally (for the utmost necessity).
There are many solutions, especially for humanitarian and living conditions; we do not lack means, and all solutions are acceptable when covered by national consensus (and broad agreement). Still, any solution outside the constitution and the number of divisions resulting from it is a suicidal, regressive, and collapsing act.
What is the reason and justification for resorting to something that its proponent claims is provocative? Knowing more that it is illegal and unconstitutional, and therefore, any decisions issued are contested in any case and are subject to fall through judicial means if they do their job, and must be overturned.
We will not accept a fait accompli—firstly, by not accepting the last session (and who said it needs a two-thirds majority; a minister’s absence or a group or component is enough!), rejecting its results, and also by refusing and opposing and preventing any subsequent session through all political, ministerial, and public means available.
And no one should think that they can replace ministers like Defense, Foreign Affairs, Justice, Social Affairs, Energy, Economy, Tourism, and maybe others later…) This cannot continue like this when solutions are available—those who genuinely care about people’s pain should know why laws like capital control and the recovery of transferred funds abroad have not been passed in three years—why has money transfers abroad been tolerated, and why do they protect the thieves of people’s money?
Those who truly care about the state and people's pain do not stop capital control before parliamentary elections so that we do not benefit from it politically, nor stop it again before presidential elections when it will impact the regime intending to renew itself through a president from within it.
Those who have grown older and are not small, and we will not attend Parliament unless we find a genuine national necessity transcending us all, and we will strive even more quickly to abandon the white paper option to have a candidate, and we will push even harder towards extended decentralization because this is not working—it's not working, guys!
Our role is our weapon, and no one will take it from us—all of us need national embrace from each other. Those who step outside national embrace will freeze—those who think they can force themselves away from national embrace will freeze.
