Nassrallah: Choose Between Compromise And Aoun

Sayyed Nassrallah’s apparent endorsement of a popular presidential vote is a clever way to hang on to Aoun without committing to him.

Mr. Nassrallah said many things last evenings that are objectionable, like his blanket defense of the Syrian regime and exonerating it from the killings. But some of the more sophisticated pronouncements he made have to do with internal Lebanese politics.

Mr. Nassrallah made the case to his cheering (and shooting) crowds that in the absence of a compromise, which he said the Syrians would bless, a constitutional amendment allowing direct vote by the people would be a fairer way than the 50%+1 to decide who the next President will be.

To many people, universal suffrage is indeed a fair way to pick a President. But in Lebanon, there’s a reason why the constitution prefers parliamentary elections. In our established sectarian system, the Christian President is selected by a parliament which by law should be half Muslim, half Christian.

That composition hardly reflects demographics on the ground, where Christians have lower birth rates and higher immigration figures. This is why PM Seniora rejected the proposal on the grounds that it institutionalizes the dominance of Muslims over Christians.

Bkirki is against such an amendment too because it could lead down the dangerous road of secularization (the next logical step after universal suffrage would be universal eligibility), and Aoun knows it.

Still, it was a shrewed political move from Mr. Nassrallah who found a way to hold on to his awkward alliance with Mr. Aoun without losing his ability to let go of him when he gets other options.