Bkirki Committee to Meet amid Divisions among Christians on Electoral Law
إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربية
A committee of representatives of four major Christian parties is expected to meet in the coming days to announce its stance from a new electoral draft-law approved by the government amid clear differences in the viewpoints of its members, An Nahar daily reported on Wednesday.
Bkirki sources refused to comment on the draft but stressed that it supports a law that represents all Lebanese sects in the best way and guarantees equality between all confessions and Lebanese parties.
The committee, which was formed by the Maronite patriarchate based in Bkirki, will study it in the next 24 hours, An Nahar said.
MP Ibrahim Kanaan, who is a member of Michel Aoun’s Change and Reform bloc that is part of the March 8 majority that makes up the cabinet, told the daily that the draft-law approved by the government is very close to Bkirki’s own view.
The committee could discuss and reach agreement on the issues that need amendments, he said.
Kanaan’s comment came a day after Free Patriotic Movement leader Aoun said “the adoption of the electoral law based on proportionality and 13 districts was the request of all those who met in Bkirki.”
But a Lebanese Forces official said that the draft “has nothing to do with the draft-laws being discussed in Bkirki.”
The first proposal made by Christian parties at the seat of the Maronite church was based on dividing Lebanon to small districts that do not surpass 3 seats each and the other called for proportionality based on 15 districts, the official told An Nahar and al-Liwaa newspapers.
MP Butros Harb, who along with the LF is part of the March 14 opposition, clearly announced his rejection of the draft-law saying it “indirectly leads to consolidating sectarian divisions in Lebanon.”
“It would also lead to the hegemony of sectarian parties on political life,” he said.
“The law that guarantees the right representation should be based on small districts of maximum 3 MPs each based on a majority representation system,” the lawmaker added.
08 August 2012, 08:58
41
this is the best law for the christian community: as it will relatively free it in Aakar, Tripoli, Baalbek,Beirut, chouf etc. however this will also mean that Harriri will lose most of his Christian Mp's and so will Jumblatt, thus there refusalof the law. However KAtaeb and Lf will gain MP's in Jbeil, Keserwen, Metn, Baabda and even Zghorta so what exactly is their problem?
08 August 2012, 10:57
00
Their problem? They are allied with Hariri and Jumblat and cannot contracdict them.
08 August 2012, 11:54
11
Go plaay in your corner FT and Co :)
this law will not pass as it is contrary to what was agreed in Bkerki meetings.
nothing less than 43 districts with full expats involvement is acceptable.
this law is tailor made to suit hizbushaitan and his followers, like the senile aoun.
08 August 2012, 12:05
10
This Proportional Representation (PR) system would be horrible for Lebanon. It would yield an M8 controlled parliament. Just like in the US, if the PR system was applied it would grant both the senate and the congress to democrats. Hell no.
08 August 2012, 13:36
00
How does this law work? will people be voting for parties? I do not understand how this guarantees christian representation, especially for christians in the South, the shi'ite vote will still be the deciding vote right? the same with Sunni's in beirut? from my understanding of proportionality it mneans that a list will take MPs proportional to the percentage it gets, so the christians will influence the vote but thats it... for example if two lists split the vote in a multi-sectarian area who decides who get the Maronite seat or Sunni seat or Shi'ite seat etc? Is anyone knowledgeable on this because I am truly confused...
08 August 2012, 14:32
00
Well sir (or mam, I'm not sure) the following two statements are very correct even if you like to label people "ignorants":
1- The Proportional Representation (PR) would yield an M8 controlled parliament.
2- Similarly if the PR system was applied in the US, it would grant both the senate and the congress to democrats.
If any of us said something ignorant, it would be you, but it's just an ignorance in English language because the word 'ignorants' does not exist; 'ignorant' is both singular and plural. (That's a joke so don't take it personal - chill out)
