The political aspect has to do with the number of Christian portfolios Aoun may eventually get when he combines Hezb’s share with his. If he converts Hezb’s share (which is part of the Shiite portfolios since Hezb has no claim over other communities) to Christian portfolios, then he is taking those portfolios away from M14 Christians, thus creating unnecessary political bickering within the same camp.

Therefore, clarification of this portfolio swap is important when you want to arrive at a final cabinet composition.

Of course, if Aoun chooses Shiite FPM portfolios for those Hezb portfolios, then this problem doesn’t arise.

So there is more to it than what you suggested. It may not sound too important to non-Lebanese, but to Lebanese politicians it makes a hell of a lot of difference to reach an agreement and maintain balance. It is still my fault, perhaps because I feel that I confused the issue and failed to make it as clear as I should have.

And comment moderations is needed QN, its the curse of having a successful blog

But, I also think it is the politicians’ fault. They succeeded to make a bad situation even worse during the last 18 years as you explained very well. Thanks again.

A friend of mine thinks that I don’t do a good enough job moderating this comment section and she’s probably right.

I’ll be back tonight to read all the comments and see who’s making sense and who’s making nonsense.

It is quite obvious that you still don’t understand QN’s argument. And I believe that’s because the Lebanese confessional system muddles you, and because you stick to slogans instead of looking into the behaviour of political actors.

This comes out clearly in the following paragraph you wrote. It is quite baffling:

“Do you dispute that the Hezbollah cabinet share is part of the Shiite community share? If you do, then please see here and try to find me a non-Shiite MP within Hezb block.
It looks like whatever Hezb gives up in terms of its share would have to come out of the Shiite share. Agree? If Hezb decides to give it to Aoun then in effect Hezb is propping-up Aoun – whether it happens in the Shiite domain or the Christian domain.”

The expression you use “Shiite community share” and “Shiite domain” do not reflect the intricate rules & principles of our political system. I think it would be more profitable to remind of them.

Our constitution mentions:
- the principle of confessional representation “تمثيل طائفي” (Article 95) which is a misnomer, the principle is actually the principle of multiconfessional participation الاشتراك المتعدد طائفيآ (and it is actually a right given to individuals, not to communities).
- the principle of national representation “عضو البرلمان يمثل الأمة جمعاء” (article 27)
- the principle of just representation of communities in government تمثل الطوائف بصورة عادلة في تشكيل الوزارة (article 95)
- the principle that any authority that contradicts the ‘pact of
communal coexistence’ is considered illegitimate لا شرعية لأي سلطة تناقض ميثاق العيش المشترك· (preamble).
- the rules of [confessional] distribution of parliamentary seats قواعد توزيع [الطائفي ل] المقاعد النيابية (article 24)

According to our constitutional rules, there is no such thing as representatives of communities ممثلين ظوائف.
However, this idea gained ground after Taef when Nabih Berri, Walid Joumblatt and Rafik Hariri fought to secure their dominant position within their communities, and when the Christian opposition to Syria (Free Patriotic Movement, Lebanese Forces, Kataeb, National Liberal Party & National Bloc) claimed to be the true “representative of Christians”.
This being said, shares are allocated to members of communities and not to communities (الحصص معطاة لابناء طائفة، وليس للطائفة). So the FPM could in principle have a Shiite minister (and he doesn’t have to be a parliamentarian, it could be for instance Ramzi Kanj), just like the Kataeb could have a Druze minister (highly improbable), or Jumblatt can have one or two Christian ministers (a well established practice)… This doesn’t diminish the communal shares, and some political parties are willing to go into such arrangements.
In the second Siniora Government, March VIII accepted to relinquish its share of Christian ministers so as to give it to Aoun’s FPM (Berri stopped having his Christian minister, & Suleiman Frangieh wasn’t represented). Likewise, Joumblat relinquished his Christian Minister (for the first time since 1992 I believe) for an “independent” close to Future Movement… Lastly, Amal and Hezbollah accepted to concede a Shiite seat to an “independent” backed by the Future Movement (Ibrahim Chamseddine) so as to give the FPM’s bloc an extra seat within the numerical arrangement.

To begin with, I’m not sure whose point it is that I quoted – whether it is actually QN’s own point or whether he just expressed an opinion that he might have heard.
Nevertheless, what was said in that paragraph is “Given that Hizbullah has routinely expressed its inclination to give up its own cabinet share to its electoral allies”

Do you dispute that the Hezbollah cabinet share is part of the Shiite community share? If you do, then please see here and try to find me a non-Shiite MP within Hezb block.

It looks like whatever Hezb gives up in terms of its share would have to come out of the Shiite share. Agree? If Hezb decides to give it to Aoun then in effect Hezb is propping-up Aoun – whether it happens in the Shiite domain or the Christian domain.

With regards to your point about knowing or not knowing calculus, I do not think it is relevant. You only need such ‘extraordinary’ skills if you adopt the so-called heresy of proportional representation in cabinet based on the number of seats won. In my previous comments, I made it clear that this is not what I subscribe to as a rule in cabinet formation and you acknowledged that in your previous comment (but granted you did not necessarily agree).

Let’s say six Shiite portfolios have to be divided up. Hezb may claim the lion’s share, let’s say three or four. Amal may claim one or two. M14 may claim one and the President may claim one. If Hezb’s share goes to Aoun, then they have to be either Shiite from the Aoun block, or if Hezb gave up its right to Shiite representation in cabinet, then the logic in my previous comment follows, i.e. the Shiite cannot have six portfolios. You do not need to be a math genius.

Now, do you see how many ‘ifs’I have in the last two comments? They can only be resolved by a clarification from Hezb on what its intentions are. That’s what I said exactly in my previous comment. Hezb’s ploy is ambiguous.

I still maintain that Aoun and his block whether it is the second largest or not should not be given any political resuscitation from M14 or FM or anyone else fore that matter. I do not have anything against him as a person. But his record beginning in 1989 onward is not very attractive to say the least. Let him prove himself on his own merits not through intra-sectarian prop-ups from groups having their own agendas, which you correctly pointed out as non-constitutional.

And by the way, giving up Hezb Shiite seats could be a good solution to the country, for the time being, in the presence of the Hezb statelet. Why should Hezb have its own statelet and still be represented in government? Is there any non-Hezb representation within Hezb structure? Perhaps, Hezb can become honest with itself, its community and the Lebanese State by declaring that it is giving up its representation in the official State because it already has its own ‘state’ and there is no need for duplicity.

Otherwise, it could also decide to give up its statelet and merge with the rest of the Lebanese in one State without need for such proxies like Aoun, Frangieh or others.

As for your second proposition, it equally indicated that you either don’t grasp the logic behind allocations of share, or your not very good in calculus. In a government of 30 ministers, March XIV® has agreed that March VIII and its allies will get 10 (and not 11) ministers. So if Hezbollah decides to sacrifice its share in government, you could have a great number of seat distribution: one of the simplest ones would be: 4 Shiite ministers to Amal, 4 Christian to the FPM + Marada, 1 Shiite seat to FPM and 1 Druze seat to Arslan. And that’s just one possible distribution.

As for your statements on Aoun, that’s your personal opinion, and you’re entitled to it. But I encourage you to go beyond the slogans you hear and try to base your analysis on facts. You might dislike the guy, his ideas, his political conduct. You can say that he has lost some support within the Christian community. But there are facts you cannot ignore. Aoun heads the second largest parliamentary bloc and his party survived on two occasions the largest electoral Bulldozers Lebanon has ever witnessed.

Do you agree on these points as well in QN’s main post, worriedlebanesw?

“Given that Hizbullah has routinely expressed its inclination to give up its own cabinet share to its electoral allies, this would permit Hariri to satisfy Aoun and Frangieh’s proportional demand without giving the opposition as a whole a blocking veto. Five seats for Change & Reform plus four seats for Berri plus one token seat for Hizbullah would seem to do the trick. No veto, but a face-saving exit for Aoun and Frangieh, and perhaps also a way for Hariri to begin mending fences with the FPM.”

Think again…

This paragraph is completely flawed and I’m not sure if you gave it enough thought. The first important question that should be asked: what is Hezb giving up in terms of a share in cabinet? Is it giving up the Shiite share in order to inflate Aoun’s Christian representation? If so, then Hezb should come out with a clear statement to this effect. It would also perhaps be helpful for Hezb to seek to justify this act in front of its Shiite constituency. In other words, would the Shiite community agree to being represented by less than six portfolios in a cabinet of thirty? If Hezb is not giving up its Shiite share in cabinet and simply acquiescing to being represented by Shiite persons that FPM would consider as part of its share, then it should also make its intentions clear to this effect. In this case Berri will not be getting 4 ministers as QN suggested. He would be getting perhaps one or two. Aoun in this case may get none, one or two Christian portfolios, in addition to his Hezb Shiite portfolios

The conclusion that is unavoidable is that Aoun has become a political liability to his allies. I do not see how he can succeed by getting resuscitated through intra-sectarian prop-up doses of constituents he has no claim over whatsoever to represent, precisely because of his insistence on the outdated 1960 election law. I do not even see how he can be sold back to March 14 or even FM after his gymnastic flip flops through such statements “Aoun’s lieutenants have been uncharacteristically supportive of Hariri in recent days (Bassil: “We have an interest in the success of Saad Hariri”)”

The guy is simply a failure of wide proportions (no pun intended on proportional representation in cabine) and he should be treated as such.

The last point I’d like to make is that M14 should under no circumstances give up its right to govern through an arragement of %50 plus 1 vote in cabinet. Needless to say, blocking third is a no, no as it is a clear heresy that has no basis in constitution or law.