Three months after the results of the Lebanese elections were announced, the debate over the identity of the winner continues: Is it the parliamentary majority as revealed by the ballot boxes, or is it the "popular majority" as announced by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in the wake of the results? Regardless of what is being said about the reasons behind the pending cabinet crisis today in Lebanon, the real reason for this crisis has to do with the fact that the disagreement between these two results is unsettled, or say, the rejection of the result of the elections, after the opposition failed to obstruct it. Before the elections, the opposition used to say: Let us end the political deadlock by conducting early parliamentary elections and whoever wins will be allowed to govern accordingly! But when the results came contrary to their expectations, the majority, which won the elections, was not allowed to impose its numerical superiority on the cabinet formation, in keeping with logic and democratic customs. Neither the majority is able to do so, nor the opposition is willing to abandon its obstructing ability represented by the failure of any government to appoint Shiite ministers unless with the opposition's consent. In this context, the mere meeting of the majority deputies, as the one that took place two days ago, has become a sin that should be condemned and considered to be aiming at hindering the efforts to form a cabinet. As such, the "model" of the withdrawal of the Shiite ministers during the famous cabinet paralysis period under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government, extended and is being repeated with today's attempts to form the cabinet. In brief, the opposition's stand is as follows: If you dare to do it, then go ahead and form a government without the Shiite ministers we want! It is the same predicament that faced Siniora at the time, although the country was and is still filled with respectful Shiite figures who can represent their sect par excellence. This obstructive behavior also applies to the stance of the "Free Patriotic Movement" leader Deputy Michel Aoun who raised the ceiling of his demands and is calling for the implementation of proportional representation in the cabinet formation. According to his calculations, his share goes up to six ministers. He then made a concession and agreed on five ministers. This gives him the largest number of Maronite seats in the cabinet, although the opposition group he belongs to did not win the majority of seats in the parliament. In practice, such a proposal means that applying the rule of "national partnership" which the opposition calls for, will inevitably end up by dividing the cabinet seats among those who control their sects, regardless of their representative seize at the broad national level. In his statement a few days ago, Hezbollah's Deputy Nawwaf al-Mousawi said that there isn't just one majority in Lebanon, but rather "many majorities", each of which should be respected with what it represents in the cabinet on this basis. In practice, this only means eradicating the idea of ending the monopoly of the powerful parties over the sectarian representation, which could allow for a broader and more comprehensive national representation. What is going on today is that the most representative Maronite leader defends his Maronite share, and so does the Shiite leader. Likewise, the Druze leader turns his political position upside down for the sake of his sect's interests. His coup was lauded by the same opposition group that leveled all kinds of accusations against him yesterday. Therefore, we are not ahead of a "national partnership" even though it is labeled as such. We are ahead of an allocation of the government pie among sects and confessions. We are not ahead of the representation of "many majorities" in the government, but rather ahead of the dismantling of the national fabric among those who have the louder voice in defending sectarian interests, even though they are labeled otherwise. This might be the heaviest cost Lebanon will pay to form this government which is falsely called a "national unity government", though it lacks any sort of unity or nationalism.
