Joint Parliamentary Committees Suspend Session on Electoral Law over Lack of Quorum
إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربية
The joint parliamentary committees convened on Wednesday to tackle the government-approved electoral law.
Media reports said however that the session was later suspended over a lack of quorum when opposition MPs withdrew from the meeting.
Deputy Speaker Farid Makari told reporters after the session: “Some MPs mistook the date of today's meeting with tomorrow.”
He explained that a change in dates for the parliamentary committees meeting took place in order to schedule the national dialogue session, which is set for Thursday.
Discussions over the electoral law will not be complete in one session, Makari added.
The deputy speaker told reporters that some MPs proposed during Wednesday's session increasing the number of electoral districts.
The government approved in August a new electoral law based on proportional representation and 13 districts.
Makari revealed that the joint parliamentary committees will meet again on September 27.
Speaker Nabih Berri has informed his deputy, Makari, the importance of discussing proposed draft laws “with a spirit of openness and focus on the implementation of proportionality,” media reports said.
The talks should be limited to the type of electoral system – proportionality or winner-takes-all – and the size of districts – small, medium or big - Berri reportedly told Makari, they said.
But huge disagreements between the majority and the opposition and mainly disputes between March 8 and March 14 Christian parties will likely mar the meeting of the joint parliamentary committees.
The Free Patriotic Movement of MP Michel Aoun on one side and March 14 Christian forces, including MP Butros Harb, Lebanese Forces and the Phalange Party, have been trading accusations on backtracking from an agreement they had reached in Bkirki under Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi.
Phalange MP Sami Gemayel told An Nahar newspaper that his party is coordinating with the LF on their joint stance.
He said the lawmakers can't discuss the proportional representation without completing the talks on the small districts, which the March 14 Christians claim were part of the agreement reached in Bkirki during discussions aimed at finding the best type of representation for Christians.
Another opposition lawmaker, Marwan Hamadeh said the opposition al-Mustaqbal movement, the Phalange, LF, and Walid Jumblat's centrist National Struggle Front have reached a common vision on an electoral law.
Sources close to al-Mustaqbal bloc leader MP Fouad Saniora said the bloc's MPs consider the government's draft-law as “vengeful in the division of districts and the adoption of proportionality.”
Saniora had dealt with proportional representation as an important reform process when he was prime minister in 2005, “but Hizbullah's control of Lebanon's political life through its arms proved that there is no value to such reform,” they told An Nahar.
Al-Mustaqbal discussed the issue with its allies in the opposition and agreed to be flexible on the study of all proposals that would bring the country out of the control of arms, the sources said.
Berri, who is a major figure in the March 8 majority coalition, has asked the members of his Development and Liberation bloc to call for the adoption of Lebanon as a single electoral district or back the government’s draft-law, the reports said.
19 September 2012, 09:38
66
For the first time in 20 years we see an electoral law proposed by General Aoun that is fair for Christians and for Muslims.
We know why al moustaqbal and jumblatt will oppose it as giving rights back to the Christians will weaken them.
But why on earth are the phalange and lebanese forces backtracking on the Bkerki agreement and now opposing the law??
19 September 2012, 11:47
01
Here is a question, does this get rid of the Taef accord? And if it Dosent, then why do we care about district sizes ect...? Under Taef it's 50/50 Muslim Christian split ...
19 September 2012, 18:39
02
Cool ... thx for the explanation :) if what u say is accurate , i agree with u .
19 September 2012, 12:27
43
cedar, right now only 30 of the 64 Christian MP's are decided by Christian voters, the districts are diluted with Moslem voters.
Under proportional representation, there is no loser, everyone gets a voice.
The problem is that the kataeb/phalange and the lebanese forces know this but do not want to change because they are owned by the saudis.
It is not the first time they have sold out and went against the Christian interests.
19 September 2012, 13:06
03
indeed, the current law puts Baabda with Maten (shi3a votes), puts Jbeil with Kesserwan (shi3a votes), puts Ashrafiye with Bashoura (shi3a votes) and you dare talking about good representation for both Christians and Muslims ? THis is nothing but a good representation for Hezballah and Aoun alliance, for the Syrian camp. The day the alliance breaks, you will start nagging this electoral law is terrible...
19 September 2012, 19:39
00
Bachoura, predominantly Shi'a Muslim community dominate the demographics of this suburb.
19 September 2012, 13:06
03
If you want a good electoral law, lets all accept the smaller district.
It doesnt take in consideration the electoral alliances, every party gets a fair representation in this case.
For example in Beirut, Baabda, Jbeil, Zahle, Chouf, Aley, Christians are most likely to bring their MPs, and Muslims as well.
This is the best electoral law to have a fair representation for both Muslims and Christians. For once the Christians will have a chance to elect over 57 MPs of 64.
LF Kataebl Mustaqbal accepted. Jumblatt refused.
FPM, Hezballah, Amal didnt yet pronounce themselves on the matter.
Jumblatt refused.
Let's see what gen. Aoun position will be .. let him for once accept what is best for the country without following Hezballah and Amal, just like LF/Kataeb did with Hariri and Jumblatt.
19 September 2012, 13:07
04
For once, i see a reasonable debate occurring instead of just accusations (except for LBO) and for that reason i'm willing to comment. Flame Thrower, i partially agree with what you said about the TAEF accord, but your first point is incorrect. Before the Taef accord the representation was not 50/50. In fact our parliament had 99 seats (Instead of the current 128), and from those 99 seats, 54 went to Christians, and 45 went to Muslims. The Taef accord changed that and subsequently made the Parliament 128 seats, which was equally divided between both religions.
19 September 2012, 13:12
03
with regards to what you said about the president loosing some of his power and instead the PM getting more power, yes i full agree. On a different but related note, i have heard contrary reports that in fact the M14 electoral proposal will secure more Christian MPS, as a result of direct Christian voting. I would appreciate if anyone can share any statisitcal figures with the rest of the forum and that way we can atleast have a proper debate instead of just childish accusations.
19 September 2012, 15:16
02
Flamethrower that's what i'm saying, which is a suitable alternative for Christians has been presented but its not being accepted by General Michel Aoun. So your statment about shooting down proportionality without providing an alternative is void. Instead what we need to all look at is the basic figures. I am all with a new electoral system, especially one that represnts the population more effectively! With my respect to all PSP fans, but i personally would rather have Jumblat have as many MPS as he is entitled to by the amount of people he represent. The days of him becoming king maker in my opinion should end. I am also happy to support a March 14 Plan if that means march 14 wins or looses according to their own might and not according to their allies. That same sentiment applies to march 8 and theri current alliances. It goes down to what represnt the people better, not what works more effectively for a specific alliance over the other.
19 September 2012, 15:21
01
If we vote in smaller districts, we reduce the effect of sectarian alliances to effect the final result. I don't want any M14 or M8 Christian MP to be awarded a seat because he got his votes from his Shia or Sunni ally.
19 September 2012, 15:21
01
If we vote in smaller districts, we reduce the effect of sectarian alliances to effect the final result. I don't want any M14 or M8 Christian MP to be awarded a seat because he got his votes from his Shia or Sunni ally.
19 September 2012, 15:22
01
If we vote in smaller districts, we reduce the effect of sectarian alliances to effect the final result. I don't want any M14 or M8 Christian MP to be awarded a seat because he got his votes from his Shia or Sunni ally.
19 September 2012, 22:35
00
look at that national circus going on with clowns from all sides to make the tired citizen laugh at them....
