Berri Mum on Next Step if MPs Fail to Find Common Electoral Ground
إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربية
Speaker Nabih Berri shied away on Monday from revealing what steps he would take if a parliamentary subcommittee failed to agree on common ground on an electoral draft-law.
In remarks to local newspapers, Berri said he will study the minutes of the meetings of the subcommittee which is scheduled to convene on Monday afternoon.
“If I find common ground that could be built on and achieve a consensual draft-law then I will ask the members of the committee to hold more consultations and agree with the rest of parties” on an electoral draft-law, he said.
Asked what steps he would take if there wasn't enough consensus, Berri said: “The electoral draft-law will be referred to the joint parliamentary committees to study it. But if I don't find any common ground then I know what to do and how to behave.”
The speaker did not give further details but said the meetings of the subcommittee that kicked off last Tuesday haven't made any progress.
He called however for “patience,” saying “it is never too late to reach consensus.”
The Orthodox Gathering proposal, which calls for a single electoral district and allows each sect to vote for its own lawmakers under a system of proportional representation, has garnered the support of six out of nine members of the subcommittee.
The subcommittee finalized on Friday the discussion on a new electoral law to govern this year's parliamentary elections, its chairman MP Robert Ghanem said.
But it will meet on Monday in an attempt to find common ground among the different political parties, he said.
He warned however that lawmakers haven't yet reached consensus on any proposal but they discussed the prospects of increasing the number of lawmakers which currently stands at 128.
In addition to the Orthodox proposal, the MPs studied a March 14 draft-law that calls for dividing Lebanon into 50 districts based on a winner-takes-all system and a government bill referred to parliament which projects Lebanon as 13 districts in a proportional representation system.
14 January 2013, 09:17
10
berry knows the ferzli/fpm/assad law does not have a majority thus cannot be implemented.
it is going to be a modified version of the 50 district law.
14 January 2013, 10:18
10
He is likely against it. He knows that whoever supports such a law will pay a price in the Shia community. It may well be his chance to put some distance between him the the hizb.
14 January 2013, 10:26
11
the filthy zionist scum trash filth, obviously not lebanese, is talking about what can and cannot happen
14 January 2013, 11:45
01
he always predicts the least likely scenario ever. the script is from mossad of course
14 January 2013, 10:28
11
you might just as well explain how " whoever supports such a law will pay a price in the Shia community".
14 January 2013, 11:06
10
The shia community is the most under-represented one in Lebanon in Lebanon' sectarian system (lowest MP to pupulation ratio). In this system where each sect votes for their MPs, the "value" of a vote of a shia person is much less than those from other communities. The hizb may care less as its priorities are different, berri's only claim is the protection of the shia community's interest.
14 January 2013, 11:12
10
In other words, if the weapons of the hizb disappears tomorrow, a shia person will count for less (politically) than any other person in Lebanon. In politics, votes is what count. If Aoun is worth solidifying this sectarian system where we have different classes of citizens, then the power to you. The shia will soon be 40 percent of the population with an MP to population ratio half of that of the national average.
14 January 2013, 11:47
01
still the shia has many ways in rpesent system, even if law changes according to your scenario, to protect their interest. without weapons.
they can reject the orthodox idea in priciple, but they don't really care.
14 January 2013, 12:04
01
if you don't know how read the constitution and taef
i'm not going to explain the basics here.
and as for your shia friends yes the care on principal level but really they don't.
14 January 2013, 12:15
01
I did read the taef agreement. The whole idea is that the muslims stop counting (their numbers) but the electoral system will be based on muhafaza so they are not discriminated against. That was the grand compromise. As the rest of your statement, it really does not make sense: "they care in principal but do not care."
14 January 2013, 15:59
00
ok i will explain it to you.
according to constitution and taef, it's enough that speaker of parliament doesn't sign some important state decision and it won't go.
also, if all shia members leave government, it collapses, except when siniora the traitor refuses to disband it.
and other mechanisms.
this is how shia, as well as sunni and maronite know that you can't get over their will
so you see, they care in principal about this issue, but really, they know they have mechanisms to protect themselves, so in reality they don't care.
if the election law is fair for all sects let it be.
14 January 2013, 20:37
00
Traitor is a person who is convicted with treason. I take issue with calling this characterization as much as I take issue with calling Miqati or nasrallah traitors by the others.
With regard to fair, the Ferzli law is hardly fair and would be laughed off as a sick joke in much of the democratic world. To be really fair (according to your logic), there are 18 officially recognized sect. They should all have the same number of MPs.
I like the scenarios you painted. However, they are flawed as it is unlikely that the hizb and amal can monopolize the shia vote forever. All what it takes is for 5 percent of the shia population to vote the other way, and you have your new head of parliament. Cabinet members need not be MPs. So one day or another, you will have your Shia Miqati.
Now let us look at what is proposed: a radical change in election law without the consent of the Sunnis. Or is it Halal for one sect but Haram on another?
