We read that the Prime Minister designate Saad Hariri submitted a list of names for his proposed cabinet to President Michel Sleiman, and which honours the 15-10-5 equation. The formation of the government however requires the signature of the President before being presented to the Parliament for the confidence vote, and I do not think that the President will approve and sign this proposition. As such, it seems that the formation of the new cabinet will have to wait until after Eid al-Fitr, or perhaps until after the session of the United Nations General Assembly, or even after President Barack Obama addresses this assembly and reveals his position towards both the conflict with Israel and the Iranian nuclear program. The formation of the cabinet may even have to be put off until after the Western ultimatum to Iran ends this month, or after a genuine warmth is seen in the reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Syria, or after a change (that will not happen) in the Egyptian position on Iran's meddling in some Arab countries or its known alliances. This is not to mention that the cabinet formation may very well have to wait until after the International Tribunal, or the other Tribunal being demanded by the government of Nuri al-Maliki following the incidents of Black Wednesday (I wonder if the other six days of the week were white). In other words, I do not expect that a cabinet will be formed in Lebanon anytime soon, whether today, tomorrow or after tomorrow. All I am expecting instead is a constitutional quandary caused by the Ta'ef accord itself: the President of the Republic may not constitutionally dissolve the Parliament, or the government, while the Prime Minister designate cannot form a cabinet without the signature of the President, which makes it seem as if the Ta'ef accord was specifically designed to allow for an external party to interfere and resolve any Lebanese crisis of governance. Yet, I will not demand for the amendment of this accord because if we could not amend a government, we simply cannot amend the Constitution. On a parallel note, I recently heard some insinuations about the possibility of forming a “cabinet of poles”, comprised of six to ten members. However, I will only believe this when I see it. After 70 days of consultations that took place in the widely known circumstances, Mr. Saad Hariri was accused of being unable to form a cabinet. However, he then indeed formed a government and thus the accusation now lies with the opposition for obstructing the government formation, because of General Michel Aoun's position and Hezbollah behind him. This is not to mention the foreign parties behind everyone, which is all reminiscent of Speaker Nabih Berri's statement that the solution can only be reached by agreement between S and S, i.e. Saudi Arabia and Syria. In any case, the analysis above should not be construed to mean that it is Saudi Arabia and Syria that are responsible for the Lebanese governmental crisis, because this crisis is essentially Lebanese in nature, and the responsibility for it lies solely on the shoulders of the Lebanese. Even if the S-S equation mentioned above is true, this can only be translated into the fact that the Lebanese are solely responsible for their problems because they are always in need of an external party, as if they haven't politically matured yet. Going beyond the issue of assigning or distributing blame, what has been previously said means that the future of Lebanon, and perhaps its very fate, is bound to issues that Lebanon has nothing to do with, such as the Iranian nuclear program. This is because the end of the diplomatic efforts with Iran and any possible confrontation with it, in addition to Iran's regional enemies and allies becoming a part of this confrontation, will all mean that Lebanon will effectively become one of the battlefields of any upcoming conflict. In fact, every Lebanese political party has an external guide (or handler, as the spy who manages local agents is called in English) except perhaps President Michel Sleiman, who appears to be the master of his own decision. However, he does not have a magic wand, and all his attempts to bring together the opposing points of view and overcome the obstacles will not succeed unless the obstructing parties decide to end their hindrance; in this vein, the opposition's response to the cabinet project proposed by Saad Hariri was only further evidence that the opposition is not seeking a settlement. In the meantime, the summer actually gave me an idea that I hope the reader will not find too strange, and then I hope that he will also be patient with me until I finish presenting it. I visited Beirut and the mountains twice this summer, and the country was hustling and bustling with Arab tourists, who were all happy to be in Lebanon enjoying the weather and the traditional Lebanese hospitality and services. In fact, the hotels that I had all to myself a year or two ago were full this time, and finding a room there was so difficult that I needed some people to mediate on my behalf, and so were the shops and restaurants. This all happened while there was no conventional government in place, but only a caretaker government. Does it follow then that it is better for us to have no government at all since every conventional or bona fide government usually leads to a new crisis, especially that the last government faced boycotting for over a year, and a sit-in for another year, while the economy was ruined during its term (but not because of it). Also, when the government resigned, the country's wellbeing was immediately restored, although the provisional caretaker government had the same members of cabinet from the preceding bona fide government. Perhaps then the reader will see my point view, that there is no need for a government, or that the absence of a government in Lebanon is less harmful than its presence.
