False Lebanses Democracy and BERRY Proposal

‎Mr. Nabih BERRY, president of the Parliament, Shiite, of AMAL Movement, ‎allied to HEZBOLLAH party, tries, since the beginning of September 2007, a ‎recourse to seek an agreement between the Majority ‎and the Opposition.

‎He is hostile against the current Majority of SANIORA government, but its ‎function of president of the Parliament takes him along to make this effort ‎with last threats. Since the war of July 2006, he took part in the collapse ‎of the Lebanese economy, by its support for the resignation of the ‎Ministers of the Opposition, the maintenance of a sit-in in the town centre ‎ of Beirut, and the complete blocking of the ‎Parliament works.

‎For the form, he is presented as a conciliator. But he does not ‎yield anything on the bottom of the conflict. It is too late to ask for a government of ‎agreement before the presidential elections. The Opposition failed in this ‎request. Its devoted proposal to have to leave this request of the ‎Opposition is a joke. He makes function of spokesman of the Opposition. ‎He requires the choice of a president who should respect his ‎antidemocratic policy, of safeguarding HEZBOLLAH weapons and the veto rights of the Opposition ‎on the government decisions.

‎This invitation at a dialogue is done in an environment comparable at ‎the dialogue table of 2005-2006, where the armed ‎Opposition members put themselves opposite Lebanese Majority personalities without weapons. ‎And one is claimed that they are democratic! This is a scorning caricature of ‎the democracy. There will be never constructive dialogue but when all the ‎political groups in Lebanon would be without weapons! How to claim to be ‎democratic whereas they closed the Parliament to prohibit to the normal ‎deputies, (not an armed clan chief ), to be able to call ‎the public opinion on what occurs, and to be able to dialogue in all ‎transparency with the representatives of the people?

‎This situation obliged the Majority to seek a political and ‎probably military support from the multinational forces conveyed in Lebanon under the ‎orders of the United Nations. This could slow down the aggressiveness of ‎HEZBOLLAH and the pro Syrian groups.

Like the manner of the mafia chiefs, the Lebanese principal political chiefs ‎fight between them in an environment of fear of terrorism and ‎violence. The balance of the reciprocal threats obliges them to continue to ‎seek an area of agreement about their participation in the State power. This has ‎nothing to do with a true democracy. They are not spirit to seek to help ‎the citizen. They fight to preserve their shares in the ‎State power.

‎In this reasoning, I invite the Lebanese democratic citizen who suffers ‎from these scandals which all impoverish us, to put the following question: ‎is it really the foreign countries which handle the Lebanese politicians for their imperialist interests or there are the Lebanese feudalists who attracts ‎foreign supports to reinforce their positions in a battle to participate the ‎privileges in what remains from the Lebanese State?

From my point of view, the evil comes from the system of false democracy ‎between the feudal Lebanese who fights for the power and who ‎facilitate the interferences of the foreign countries. The impoverishment ‎of the majority of Lebanese makes them unable to react vis-a-vis the ‎capacities of the money of the feudal ones. Each feudal creates ‎associations of charity to make faithful his partisans. The ambitious Lebanese ‎young person has one choice since the independence of Lebanon in 1943. He ‎migrates abroad, aiming to be formed and find work. The ‎youth departure by migration abroad makes it possible feudal to continue to plunder ‎the country and to alienate those who remain.

The current acute example is obvious in the step of Mr. Nabih BERRY. The ‎threats of the Opposition of terror and < flying spite > according to its ‎own expression, are counterbalanced by the Western political pressures with ‎the presence of the instruments of threats of terror which the armies of ‎the United Nations around Lebanon represent.

Once again, I say that the political action in Lebanon evolves/moves like a ‎balance between chiefs of mafias. The fear of terror pushes them ‎to seek the opening of a new dialogue. But each chief of Mafia does not ‎want to yield any of his privileges built since tens of years.

Whereas in the modern democracies, the politician worries about the safety ‎and the level of quality of life of the citizens, the Lebanese politician ‎is ready to create a civil war if he does not have a share in the State power and the well-known financial corruptions into the State administration

Vis-a-vis these Mafiosi with the hereditary powers in Lebanon, we recognize ‎‎new Lebanese democratic personalities who are able to bring Lebanon towards ‎‎modern reforms for the civil rights and who are not chiefs of clans. The ‎‎majority of these democrats have close relations with the current Majority ‎‎and the Movement of General AOUN. The disagreements between this General ‎‎and the chiefs of the group of March 14 (Majority) are a monumental fault ‎‎against the independence and the safety of Lebanon.

13
But, the majority of the current feudal chiefs locks the State and prevents essential reforms for a modern democracy.‎

1
One reason of the existence of the LSTDO is to work for democratic reforms to make responsible the politicians in front of the citizen voter and to prevent the compromising and blackmails between them. But, we do not have enough means necessary to weigh in these conflicts of < powerful people >.

2
The current Opposition, which adopts antidemocratic attitudes, continues by the step of Mr. Nabih BERRY to practice the blackmail to preserve part of the State Power and the privileges acquired thanks to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon since tens of years.

3
The rejection of the dialogue with Mr. Nabih BERRY is difficult to understand by people who do not follow closely the Lebanese conflict. But the threats, made by the Opposition to create a civil war, are clear. The chances to lead the Opposition to become respectful of the State and the democratic play are tiny. After what the Majority did in the direction of the reforms, the democracy and independence, there is no question of yielding. We need a democratic president for the future of the democratic and independence young Lebanese people.

4
It is obvious that when one asks a candidate to have at least two thirds of the deputies to be elected, he will be obliged to make compromising and to undergo blackmails. He is brought to make promises to preserve the privileges of those who have a power to haggle over. This has nothing to do with the needs for the Lebanese people.

5
In a modern democracy, one selects the best candidate according to his program and his own convictions. The competition finishes between the two best candidates placed after one or more turns of selections. Half of the voters plus one are enough to elect a president of the republic at the last turn.

6
In Lebanon and according to its Constitution, for the first turn, one needs the support of two thirds of the deputies registered in the Parliament to elect a president. This is difficult to obtain if there are really freedom and democracy in the country. With the second turn, the president can be elected with 50% of the deputies registered in the Parliament plus one. This last situation can also be difficult to obtain. There can be blank votes. There can be deputies who do not come to vote. Half plus one make 65 deputies of the Lebanese Parliament. If no candidate has 65 deputies, Lebanon will be in crisis of absence of president of the republic. The current Constitution of Lebanon is defective in this field. It will be necessary to reform for an automatic selection of a president after several turns of competitions to choose the best candidate and not inevitably who makes compromising or blackmails to gather 65 deputies or more. The competition by selections with several turns makes it possible at the end to impose the election of a president who obtains at least half of the voters plus one whatever it is the absenteeism, at the last turn.

7
On the whole, with respect of the current Constitution, the Opposition must accept the disarmament and the democratic procedure of the Lebanese State so that an agreement is possible. Otherwise, the deputies who would really work for the future of the people in Lebanon must act in the direction of the election of a president who engages with the following principles, even if he is elected by a half plus one of the deputies:

- existence of only one democratic State of rights ;

- disarmament of any person on the Lebanese ground except the army and the services of safety;

- any political conflict must be managed at the Parliament and not in the street;

- any legal conflict must be managed with the impartial and free courts without any pressures;

- working for economic policy supporting the work of proximity with sufficient and right wages.

These principles appear to me to exist in the spirit of the deputies of the Majority of March 14 and the Free Patriotic Movement.

________Links______

To make a letter to contact the direction, only if you wish to be Militant or identifiable or anonymous Supporter.

_______________________________________

You can choose the Arabic-speaking or the French-speaking pages while clicking on the adequate flag.