In the view of Member of Parliament Mohammad Kabbara, a member of the Tripoli bloc in the legislature, sectarianism is the principal obstacle to political and economic progress in Lebanon is the continuing habit of its politicians to see things through confessional spectacles. “In principle”, he said, “we have a democratic system in which Parliament plays a main role in deciding policy and the future of the country. But this is not the reality because Parliament’s role is practically non-existent, given our political practices and internal conflicts”, which include “the habit of the president, the speaker and the premier of taking decisions and handling public matters by themselves, as was the case during the ‘troika’, by dividing up the spoils in the name of confessional balance. [This has] directly contributed to weakening the legislature’s ability to control the executive power. The sectarian wheeling and dealing, the absence of national political parties and the refusal of many to subordinate personal interests to the wider interests of the state and society directly affect the parliamentary regime and limit democratic practices”, he argued. It was, he added, the constant discord among the three senior leaders which had “led to the state of paralysis we see in the Administration today and its direct impact on the growing deficits, the increasing burdens on the Treasury and the resulting unemployment and emigration of the best and brightest of our young people. Thus, their disagreements have led the people to lose hope in the future”.

Is the government’s performance improving, do you think?

Despite the grave situation the Lebanese people are facing and the exceptional circumstances the region is going through, the current government has displayed all the contradictions that paralyzed its predecessor, such as constant discord among its members and a concern to share the spoils of office instead of promoting the good of the nation. And so the action of the cabinet is paralyzed at all levels. The calm seen at the last two cabinet meetings was deceptive; be sure there will be storms to come to match those of the past, and the interests of the Lebanese people will not be enhanced.

In my view, the problem is that the system is still mired down in sectarian attitudes. The only way out of the mess is for the government to respect fundamental democratic principles based on the separation of powers and respect for the Constitution and the rights of citizens.

In principle, we have a democratic system in which Parliament plays a main role in deciding policy and the future of the country. But this is not the reality because Parliament’s role is practically non-existent, given our political practices and internal conflicts.

The sectarian wheeling and dealing, the absence of national political parties and the refusal of many to subordinate personal interests to the wider interests of the state and society directly affect the parliamentary regime and limit democratic practices.

Moreover, the habit of the president, the speaker and the premier of taking decisions and handling public matters by themselves, as was the case during the ‘troika’, by dividing up the spoils in the name of confessional balance, has directly contributed to weakening the legislature’s ability to control the executive power. And this behavior of the three senior leaders is proof that none of them respects the others’ constitutional prerogatives.

Political life in Lebanon often depends on politicians ‘agreement or disagreement…

The main principle of any democratic system is the existence of an opposition that reflects the vitality of the political life. Therefore, it is through the divergence of opinions and the freedom of expression and political movement that the main principle of democracy is applied. But if you are referring to the senior officials’ agreement or disagreement, it is their disagreements that have led to the state of paralysis we see in the Administration today and its direct impact on the growing deficits, the increasing burdens on the Treasury and the resulting unemployment and emigration of the best and brightest of our young people. Thus, their disagreements have led the people to lose hope in the future.

What is the position of your Tripoli Front regarding the discord between the president and the premier?

It is not a merely matter of divergence of opinions between the president and the premier, but rather that of a deficiency in the regime which should be radically resolved.

This is why we refuse to get into the game of setting scores between the president and the premier as if things were running smoothly in the country.

Before the Taef Agreement, the executive power was solely vested in the president, who exercised it in collaboration with the cabinet ministers, one of whom he chose to be prime minister. But with his wide prerogatives, he was not considered responsible in a way that conformed to any authentic democratic practice.

After the Taef Agreement, the president became bound to abide by the results of the parliamentary consultations that preceded the nomination of a prime minister. He was no longer free to choose whom he wanted. The executive power became henceforth vested in the full cabinet, and the appointment of ministers was subject to the assent of the prime minister. The arrangement might have succeeded had it not been for the sectarian attitudes that continue to dominate mindsets in this country. The real problem is not that of prerogatives, but the confessional considerations that basically reflect the interests of the ruling class, not those of the Lebanese people.

What is your front’s stance on the matter of expropriating land to build public schools? And are the budget allocations given to North Lebanon sufficient for that region’s development?

Unfortunately, every subject discussed in the Council of Ministers ends up becoming a contentious matter that revolves around the rights of this or that religious confession.

The expropriation issue is multifaceted since it concerns the modernization and development of the infrastructure.

There is a proposal to build a second ‘palace of congresses’ in Beirut, and this too will require an expropriation of land. We oppose this proposal, but we support the establishment of public schools anywhere in the country. The important thing is to work seriously according to a long-term plan, in order to help the deprived regions catch up with the developed and prosperous regions. For instance, is it reasonable to allocate to region where illiteracy is no more than five percent of the population the same amount as the regions of Tripoli and the North where illiteracy has reached 20 percent?

And is it reasonable to allocate to impoverished regions in Tripoli the same sums as opulent areas in the capital without giving due regard to their needs.

We are against the logic of dividing funds and developing certain regions at the expense of others. Moreover, we reject the idea of administrative decentralization and call for the application of a plan that would give priority to the deprived regions so as to help them catch up with the other areas.

What is your perception of a fair electoral law?

One of the most important decisions in any democratic regime is the adoption of an electoral law that would allow the selection of the parliamentary representatives. But it is difficult to enact one given that it is linked to the internal and regional political situation and the interests of the ruling class.

So far, the Lebanese electoral laws have only aimed to ensure the persistence of the ruling class. But any new electoral arrangement that does not reflect the aspirations of the Lebanese citizens represents a setback in the process of building the future. We need a new electoral law that ensures an equitable representation of all communities and regions. This is why the Tripoli Front proposed a new electoral law based on the principle of proportional representation.

What do you think of the current international initiative to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, the so-called ‘road map’? Can it succeed if Lebanon and Syria are not included in it?

The ‘map’ embodies the American view of the problem, which is to build a comprehensive settlement on a number of previous and partial settlements. In any case, no comprehensive settlement can be achieved if Lebanon and Syria are not fully involved.

As to whether the Americans’ can impose their vision of peace, this will depend on whether they are willing to acknowledge the right of a people’s self-determination and on the ability of the US and the rest of the international community to enforce whatever settlement is reached. We in Lebanon must take care that no peace is put in place at the expense of our vital interests.