It was no coincidence for the CV (Curriculum Vitae) which specified the characteristics of the President of the Republic according to the Doha Agreement to include that of being “consensual”. The same can be said about the government cabinet which was sought to be formed after the latest legislative elections, and which was described as a “national unity government”. The purpose of this was clear, and it was to void political life in Lebanon of its true meaning, represented by the freedom of choice available to its officials, and by the ability of state institutions to play their role far from any tutelage. Indeed, the President of the Republic in Lebanon has now become governed by standards of political conduct that do not apply to any president or any country, neither in the neighboring region nor in the world. Furthermore, legislative elections have now become prohibited from producing a government that would reflect the true directions taken by voters and would express their choices. This is why President Michel Suleiman is not to be envied for the role he has been appointed to play. Indeed, how is he to play this role which has become required of him, every time he wakes up in the morning, to carry the balance of “consensus”, using it to weigh any decision he might take? Does this speech or that statement represent a breach of consensus – as was said about his call for an SSE (Saudi Arabia-Syria -Egypt) formula, in which he had added Egypt to Parliament Speaker Berri's famous formula? What about receiving such or such a politician rather than another? Or visiting such or such a country before another? What if the President of the Republic were to choose a politician of a certain political direction to sit at the dialogue table, having considered that politician to represent a certain political weight, and not choose another of lesser political weight? Briefly and simply, the characteristic of being “consensual” that has been given to the function of the President of the Republic is equivalent to a test that must be taken and passed every day. This was not fair to a man who never failed, in words and in deeds, and as admitted by the leaders of the Resistance themselves, to prove his sincerity in dealing with the issues of interest for those who imposed the characteristic of “consensus” on the presidential CV. Indeed, General Michel Suleiman proved when he was Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and especially during the 2006 July War, that he had no need for certificates or tests of this sort. All of this begs the question of what the justifications are for the campaign we are witnessing today against the President of the Republic. Does it target this president in particular? Or does it target the role which is supposed to be played by the institution of the presidency as a symbol of the sovereignty and unity of the state, a role which it should exercise freely and be allowed, as the highest office in the land, to have the ability to remain at a reasonable distance from pressures from any side, whether such sides be domestic or foreign? Indeed, whatever may have been said about the current president, and whatever remarks may have been made about his presidential performance, it remains that such a performance is different from that of his two predecessors who assumed the post since the Taif Agreement, which laid down new rules for the president's powers. The difference is in the interest of strengthening the role of the President of the Republic, despite the reduction that has befallen it, as well as – and especially – in the interest of the independence of such a role, in comparison with the subordination chosen by his predecessors. Perhaps it is specifically such subordination which those who today are taking sides against President Suleiman are calling for; as they consider that his not walking such a path raises doubts over the extent of his “consensual” nature. Are not the proponents of this theory those who for instance criticized MP Walid Jumblatt, despite the shifts he has gone through, for continuing to account for the “centrist” stance, at a time when centrism is dead in Lebanon in their view? President Michel Suleiman has so far ignored responding to the campaign targeting him, and has chosen silence instead of confrontation. Even when the government cabinet in its latest session suggested issuing a stance in support of Suleiman, he himself wished on the cabinet to ignore this matter. Yet ignoring it does not mean that those standing behind the campaign have retreated, or that the chapter of testing Suleiman's performance has been closed. Indeed, in light of the reversal being witnessed by the balance of power in Lebanon and the fragmentation occurring in political coalitions, such a performance will be exposed to scrutiny and held to account more than at any time before. Moreover, President Suleiman will have to prove that he truly understands consensus, that he does not represent a paralysis of the presidency and of its role, but rather a middle stance amidst political disputes, without such a stance being at the expense of the sovereignty of the state, or the president paying the price for it in submission to the various pressures.
