Ziyad Baroud* writes about Lebanon's upcoming presidential elections Lebanon's presidential elections are constitutionally scheduled to take place in November 2004, and the question on everyone's lips is whether President Emile Lahoud's six-year presidential mandate -- from 1998 to 2004 -- will be extended. Article 49 of the Lebanese constitution, adopted in 1926, stipulates that the president of the republic shall be elected for a six-year term through secret ballot by a two-thirds majority of the Chamber of Deputies, or parliament -- Lebanon follows a unicameral legislature. After the first ballot, an absolute majority suffices. But Article 49 also clearly states that the president "may not be re- elected until six years after the termination of his last mandate." This article was key in developing the image of Lebanon as a democracy where the rules of the game are followed to the extent that autocracy or dictatorship are rendered effectively impossible. One has to admit that, in comparison to its neighbours, Lebanon is truly unique. The post-1943 emerging state of Lebanon was in many ways a true exercise in democracy, despite the ups and downs generated by regional and international influences, for such a small country cannot pretend to have complete freedom of choice. Nevertheless, the Lebanese consistently succeeded in being "players" and not simply "watchers". There was a time when the Lebanese parliament could make choices, when political forces had a word in the electoral process and when the Lebanese people felt that the external factors and pressures could only go so far as influencing -- not determining -- their MPs' choices, who held however the final word when it came to the presidential elections. Now, however, one MP has openly and publicly stated that more than 80 of his peers -- out of 128 -- will behave in the upcoming elections according to what he referred to as "remote control", regardless of their own personal preference. It is common knowledge that, especially after the Taif Accords were signed in the early 1990s, Syria has played a dominant role in the Lebanese political arena. Still, it is deeply distressing to witness such capitulation by Lebanon's politicians to "the godfather's" will, despite the fact that President Bashar Al-Assad of Syria speaks about the elections being a strictly Lebanese matter -- if only for the purposes of not giving himself away. The current debate is focused on whether Article 49 of the constitution will be amended to enable Lahoud to renew his mandate for another six-year term, or to extend it for another two or three years. This would not be without precedent: former President Elias Hrawi extended his term from 1995 to 1998 in what he described as an "exceptional" measure. The constitution was also amended in 1998 when Lahoud was elected president, thus allowing a former chief commander of the army to run for the presidency for the first time. It seems that throughout Lebanese history, almost all presidents have had an appetite for a second mandate. The country's first head of state following independence, President Sheikh Beshara Al-Khouri, himself arranged for a second term in 1947 -- two years prior to the end of his mandate in 1949 -- through questionable parliamentary elections that led to the creation of a Chamber of Deputies that was allied to his cause. Al-Khouri was re- elected for another six-year term following a constitutional amendment, in effect annulling the legally-enshrined need for a six-year break from power. But the re-elected president could not handle the opposition's pressure, which ultimately forced him to resign in the middle of his mandate in 1952. Similarly, in 1958, President Camille Chamoun was attacked by prominent opposition figures on the premise that he had a desire, though undeclared, to run for another mandate. The 1958 so-called revolution was part of that attack. Although he was former commander-in-chief of the army, President Fouad Shehab declined a petition supported by 80 signatory MPs who were willing to support a campaign for the renewal of his mandate. Lebanon's presidential elections are an opportunity for all the concerned parties to re-attribute to the Lebanese people the choice of their future president. Syria's interference should not paralyse the democratic process, especially at a time when the region is subject to much change and reform. The presidential elections should be "lebanised", so to speak, no matter what the outcome may be. If the Lebanese and the Lebanese alone decide to amend the constitution -- legally, and demanding national specificity -- then so be it. Otherwise, if the election of a new president only reflects some sort of consensus between Syria and the United States, and does not restore the vision of Lebanon as a regional leader in democracy, human rights and multiculturalism, then it will only add to the area's many crises. It is critical that the Lebanese regain their independence and take control of their institutions, system, and political future, and do not bow down to Damascus' pressure to extend Lahoud's presidency simply because he is Syria's candidate of choice. The elections could be an opportunity for the Lebanese to decide, for a change, what they really want. * The writer is secretary-general of the Lebanese Association for Democratic Elections and lecturer at Université Saint Joseph in Beirut. He wrote this commentary for Al-Ahram Weekly
