Lebanon's search

A new president may finally be chosen

General Michel Suleiman, the commander of the Lebanese army, seems to be assured of occupying the vacant post of president, now that the parliamentary majority has endorsed him as its compromise candidate. However, there are still some thorny issues to settle before the opposition agrees to give its blessing to General Suleiman's election, and further problems loom large assuming he is eventually installed.

The army commander was not among the declared candidates in the weeks running up to the expiry of the mandate of Emile Lahoud on November 24th. However, he had always been considered as the most likely fallback option in the event that the government and the opposition failed to reach a consensus on one of the figures that had put their names forward. The general has carefully fostered an image of political neutrality, although the fact that he was appointed in 1998 during the era of Syrian control over Lebanon has tainted him with the stain of Damascus's approval in the eyes of some.

Constitutional tweaking

The breakthrough for General Suleiman came when the March 14th bloc, which holds a slender parliamentary majority, declared that it was ready to propose a constitutional amendment enabling him to stand—senior state officials must have relinquished their positions for two years before putting themselves forward for election. The same procedure was adopted in 1998 for Mr Lahoud, who had also been the commander of the army before assuming the presidency.

The March 14th bloc presented this as a major concession on its part, because it entailed the formal abandonment of its notional right to employ its parliamentary majority to elect one of its own candidates. The move invited reciprocation from the opposition through lifting its boycott of parliament so as to allow the assembly of a quorum of at least two-thirds of the members. However, the opposition, comprising the Shia bloc of Hizbullah and Amal, as well as the Free Patriotic Movement of Michel Aoun, a former army commander and a candidate in the contest to succeed Mr Lahoud, appears to be setting conditions. These are said to include the proviso that General Suleiman should limit his tenure to two years, until fresh parliamentary elections are held in 2009 according to a revised election law, and that the new parliament should elect the next president.

Siniora out

The opposition is also thought to be seeking assurances on the make-up of the new government. Following the withdrawal of all of the Shia ministers from the government of the prime minister, Fouad Siniora, in November 2006, the opposition has refused to recognise that government's legitimacy. The opposition demanded one-third of the seats in any new government, which would have given it the ability to veto any cabinet decisions, something that Mr Siniora refused to countenance.

If the opposition insists on such conditions for co-operating in the election of General Suleiman, the government and March 14th may decide to withdraw their support for the army commander and revert to their original candidates. The opposition could of course assent to General Suleiman's election without conditions, only to resubmit their demands after his election as the price for taking part in the government.

Syrian shift?

The March 14th concession coincided with an apparent shift in Syria's regional policy, with the decision of President Bashar al-Assad to dispatch his deputy foreign minister to attend the Annapolis peace conference. This provoked speculation that a deal might be afoot, whereby Syria would use its influence in a benign way to broker a compromise in Lebanon in return for a US commitment to press for an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights and an undertaking that if any Syrians were to be charged to appear before the international tribunal on the assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri (and several related murders) they would not include senior officials. There is no hard evidence that any such deal is being seriously discussed, but Syria has been gratified to find that the US, the EU and its fellow Arab states are keen to reward Mr Assad's regime for anything that might be construed as good behaviour over Lebanon. All the more so, given that General Suleiman may well have been regarded by Mr Assad as the ideal Lebanese presidential candidate all along.

However, any such shift in Syrian policy will remain incomplete if the issue of Hizbullah's military wing is not addressed. Syria has the ability to squeeze Hizbullah's military supply lines, but any such move would be strongly resented by Iran, and, as such, could backfire on Mr Assad. The Syrian leader may also be inclined to consider that the best way of evading any adverse consequences from the Hariri tribunal is to ensure that Lebanon continues to experience political turmoil, thus compromising the ability of the Lebanese judiciary to make its necessary contribution to these proceedings.