iloubnan.info : Are you a candidate for presidency?
Boutros Harb : You know that in Lebanon, there is no procedure pertaining to the presentation of one’s candidacy to the presidential elections since the Constitution does not lay out that it is officially necessary to run as a candidate and it is not a usual practice in Lebanon to do so. In fact, historically, very few people have officially announced their candidacy and I stand out amongst these rare exceptions. During the past elections, I officially announced my candidacy and declared my political vision as well as the solutions I recommended to tackle the political, economic and social problems that the country was suffering from. Today, my name appears on the list of potential candidates because I am one of the Maronite political figures who is recognized by public opinion as a potential candidate for presidency. In fact, I declared during the round table discussions, in response to General Aoun’s assertion that he is the only political figure who can be a candidate, that there were other eligible candidates and that I was one of them. To date, I have not officially declared my candidacy but I know that I will follow the same steps I took in the past by making my candidacy official and announcing my agenda.

Why wait?
The development of events and the evolution of political talks as well as the approaching deadline of the presidential elections will all play a decisive role when it comes to my candidacy.

Will you run as a March 14 coalition candidate or as an independent candidate? Which place will you grant Hezbollah if elected?
I am member of the March 14 coalition but I am also in the moral and even constitutional obligation to commit to all the Lebanese people. If I am elected, I will be consequently independent of the March 14 coalition and will position myself at equal distance from all political factions, in other words from both the majority and the opposition, in a way that will allow me to play the role of a president who takes on his responsibilities as the president of all institutions, as a symbol of the country’s unity and a regulator of political life. And all this, in accordance with the Lebanese political tradition and with the spirit of the Constitution.

In what way will you be able to detach yourself from the majority that supported you? How do you perceive presidency?
First of all, it will not be a matter of “detachment” as such because we - the members of the March 14 coalition - came together because of the principles that we believe in; our alliance is based on that rather than on personal relations and interests, and it is in agreement with March 14 that I will adopt this approach. Members of March 14 are aware of the fact that the president of the Republic is not a president elected to manage the country as a member of the March 14 alliance. He is supposed to take his political distance without however denying the democratic national principles he adheres to and which are, in my case, those of March 14. The president of the Republic must, first and foremost, be a unifying president and a father to all Lebanese citizens, not a president for the March 14 coalition working against March 8. Such an attitude will set off the creation of a new perception of the presidential function and of a new political era in which the March 14 and March 8 alliances will disappear, leaving room for new political forces that will emerge following the creation of a government and the initiation of its program.

Where do you stand with regards to the controversial question of the quorum being a prerequisite for electing the president of the Republic?
There are two major schools. According to the first school, article 49 of the Lebanese Constitution states that the 2/3 majority is required for the president to be elected in the first turn. This school endorses that the 2/3 quorum is implicitly necessary; especially since this principle has been respected during several former presidential elections.
Another school states that, the same article 49, did not lay down an exceptional and special provision pertaining to the quorum, which implies that parliament sessions are regulated by article 34 of the Constitution¹ which consecrates the general principle of the legality and constitutionality of the parliamentary sessions from the consecration of half + 1 (i.e. of the absolute majority) of the members of the Parliament.
Another school considers that article 49, which regulates the presidential elections, does not mention another quorum and that when there is a general principle, it should be applied except during a special exceptional and explicit provision that provides for an exemption from this principle, as it is the case (for example) for article 79 pertaining to the sessions devoted to the amendment of the Constitution²
Both of these theses are valid. I believe that the most important thing to do is to take on the position of the Maronite patriarchate and bishops, according to whom, we should not reflect on quorum related legislations but rather emphasize that the duty of all parliamentarians is to be present and put forward their respective positions. Their absence would be a breach of their constitutional and national duties and would constitute a threat to the country. This position is the only means that would allow the respect of the rules of democracy and competition, otherwise quorum could become a blackmail weapon used by both sides, namely by influential people on the political scene. By claiming a 2/3 quorum and by not attending, the deputies would create a gap in parliament and thus, a new situation that would necessitate, in their opinion, anticipated parliamentary elections and then the election of a president by this new Parliament. But what if we tolerate these predispositions which could guarantee that either majority or opposition can gather 2/3 of votes in the forthcoming elections? What happens then? This scenario cannot be tolerated in a country like Lebanon and successive parliamentary elections would completely paralyze our democratic system.

Now that the Security Council has adopted the international tribunal and that it is no longer a debatable issue, can one hope to see the establishment of national union?
In some way, we already know the answer to this question. The creation of this tribunal is key. The ten-day deadline will expire without the occurrence of any changes. In the current context and according to personal inquiries and information that I’ve received, the possibility of a national agreement is non-existent. Subsequently, the Security Council will proceed with the application of resolution 1757.
But if the application of resolution 1757 by the Council constitutes, in itself, a vital step forward, it wouldn’t solve all the problems pertaining to the court. There are numerous implementation phases that must be initiated and executed in collaboration with the Lebanese government. The voted tribunal did not disregard the obligations of the Lebanese government in the creation of this international authority. The UN and the Lebanese government had actually agreed on the nature of these obligations in the project that shaped the tribunal. There will thus be various stages during which the Lebanese government will have to make decisions, in particular regarding the designation of the Lebanese magistrates who will take part in the tribunal, the drafting of a bill pertaining to the amendment of the penal legislation with regards to death penalty, and the participation towards the court expenses.

Syria asserts that it is not concerned with the international court. How do you regard this statement?
I do not have an opinion on that. I am a Jurist. I cannot be a substitute for the international court and judge Brammertz to point out suspects and indict. It would be hazardous for somebody of my background to anticipate the end of the investigation.
I took note of the Syrian political position but I do not have a comment with regards to the contents of the indictment bill concerning the people involved and their status. All these considerations depend on the evidence collected by the examining magistrate. The investigation will prove if the Syrian regime is implicated or not. But even the indictment bill does not constitute the final decision. It is ultimately up to the court to judge, clear or condemn. It would take years to reach this step considering the belatedness of the penal and international systems.

Is there, according to you, a connection between the bomb attacks, the current turmoil in Nahr el-Bared and Ain el-Hélweh, and the question of the international court? What are the objectives behind Fatah Al-Islam’s attacks?
I cannot perceive these developments as being independent from each other. It is a cycle of premeditated acts to sow chaos in the country and to destroy its economy as well as its tourist and summer season potential which is a vital driver for Lebanon’s economic and social development. More so, if the Lebanese authorities do not manage to counter these events, the enemies of Lebanon will have succeeded in achieving their goals and the Lebanese people would have failed, leading to the loss of Lebanon. I am sometimes astonished to see the Lebanese treating such serious events with lightness and unconsciousness and exploiting them to serve political interests in order to continue the existing table tennis game between the majority and the minority. A game that the Lebanese people are sick and tired of watching.

Do you think that these events constitute, more specifically, a political message to discredit the current government?
One of the very obvious scenarios that we are trying to circumvent is that of pushing the government to resign without having a consensus on another one to replace it, which would paralyze the country. I met with president Berry yesterday to discuss his political stand-point which consecrates the resignation of the government as prerequisite to the dialogue, and drew his attention to the dangerous consequences that might ensue. I believe that we concluded our meeting yesterday on positive orientations, which I cannot reveal for the moment, but which could bring a resolution to the problems we are confronted with.