“It is normal for every political group [read sect] to endeavor to make the electoral law serve the best of its interests. The representative [in parliament] should not be only a Moslem or a Christian; he should represent the Moslems or the Christians respectively. Then, thing will be better.”
– Al Hakim Samir Ja’Ja’, interview on LBC, 18/3/2006
I must have been in the dark all this time. I thought that laws were made to serve the best interest of the country. And I really believed that “Lebanon was first” and representatives represented the nation. I thought naively that the “first class” leaders of the round table were making an effort in drafting laws in which all citizens are equal. But then what do I know. If I were as wise as they are, I would have been with them, serving them tea, at least.
The electoral law seems to be drafted in order to lead to definite results in the elections. This is scary. We are reliving the past. The law is tailored to fit certain individuals. And if this course carries on, then it will be no surprise when Rustom Ghazali comes back as the ambassador of Syria in Lebanon, and Jame’ Jame’ as the cultural attaché. And who knows maybe after fifteen years the officers in custody today will be sitting around a round table for a new round of “National Dialogue”. Too much turning makes me dizzy.
I am having the strangest feeling that “the National Dialogue” is a good rehearsal for the “House of Senate” (Majlis al Shoyoukh) stated in the “Taef Agreement” in which the heads of the illustrious sects of the land are represented. Therefore, I propose (makes me feel important when I say propose) that it be given a legitimate status in law and let it be another of the ruling institutions. Why stick with three heads when we can have four. And let the Sultan of Bani Maarouf, guess who, preside upon this house. Aren’t most of the members of the on going “National Dialogue” “Sheiks” while he is the “Beik”?