Lebanonwire, November 30, 2002

The Daily Star

Maha Al-Azar
Daily Star staff
 
The 1989 Taif Accord which was meant to safeguard national coexistence could not accomplish its goal without true implementation of the text and the creation of a proper electoral law, said participants at a Friday workshop.
Fady Moghaizel, director of the Joseph and Laure Moghaizel Foundation, said that the accord, which replaced the 1943 National Pact, is really a manifestation of the people’s wish for national coexistence in an independent country, while the Constitution is the translation of this into laws and texts that guarantee the creation of such a nation.
However, Moghaizel said that constitutions and pacts are not enough to guarantee national coexistence.
What is needed is a new electoral law that guarantees proper representation by encouraging the formation of political parties and reform programs. He added that such a law could help change the current mentality of Lebanese such that the next generation would be raised on concepts of human rights and a civic sense. Furthermore, divisions within the country could be avoided by a new election law as it could ensure the development of a fair, ethical and competent judiciary as well as an improved economic climate.
Moghaizel made these comments during his welcome address at a workshop called Constancy of Accords, Changing of Constitutions in Lebanon.
Held at the Commodore Hotel, the workshop was organized by the Lebanese Observatory for Democracy, a European Union-backed program at the foundation, which strives for free and fair elections, a transparent government, respect for all rights and an active civic society.
Antoine Mesarra, the director of the observatory, said the aim of the workshop was to compel people to “stop reading Taif with an ancient mentality.”
Many notions in Taif are still unclear, he added, and it’s up to political and legal scholars to decipher these terms. “Unfortunately, for both ideological reasons as well as laziness, this is not happening.”
Former MP Zahir Khatib, who participated in the 1989 meeting in Taif, Saudi Arabia, insisted on abolishing political sectarianism to guarantee freedom and fairness in elections.
“How can we consider that voters are free to choose whomever they want when, from the outset, we restrict their choice by telling them you have to select one Sunni, two Shiites and one Maronite, for instance?” he asked.
Khatib also said secularism in politics has nothing to do with atheism and that religious leaders should be open to it.
Seoud al-Mawla, member of the committee for Islamo-Christian Dialogue, argued that in order to transcend sectarianism in politics, Muslims and Christians each have to face challenges.
Muslims should be able to “forget the past and reconcile themselves with it ­ something which unfortunately no Muslim has sought yet,” he said. “They should also accept that Lebanon is a definitive country, just like Hizbullah and Al-Jamaa al-Islamiya did when they decided to join the political arena. Moreover, they should be able to renew their political discourse.”
Similarly, Christians should learn to understand the changes in the world and the region and truly embrace the Taif Accord, as it is their path to salvation, Mawla said. He added that Christians should resolve any issues they have with belonging to the region.
Former Speaker Hussein Husseini, or the “godfather of Taif” who is the only person to possess the original deliberations that took place in the Saudi city, said that the accord was “not born in Taif, but was merely announced there.”
Husseini also argued that the accord was the result of discussions and negotiations taking place in parallel to the 1975-90 war and was in fact a dialogue that began in 1920, after the French announced the creation of Greater Lebanon.
He described Lebanon as an “institution for Islamo-Christian dialogue in the context of freedom” that is in constant interaction, and therefore “far more meaningful than the annual or periodical conferences held in Europe in which three Muslims and three Christians discuss issues.”
Husseini highlighted the importance of freedom for Lebanese by saying that ever since the country was born, Lebanese have been able to practice their freedom without it being granted to them by a ruler.
This practice of freedom, which does not exist anywhere else in the region, also gave birth to Lebanese diplomacy, as a result of high levels of emigration, he added.
In his paper, Mesarra argued that the reason the 1943 pact had to be amended is that it could not afford equal power-sharing between the three powers, while keeping the principle of separation of powers intact.
He also added that since the Taif Accord, or any accord in Lebanon, results from both internal and external interaction and discussion, whenever a party calls for amending the accord it is effectively setting the country up for external interference.
“We cannot make Lebanon into a Christian country, a Muslim country or a federation without hearing what the Arabs and even Israel have to say about that,” he said.
Mesarra wondered why the Lebanese constantly question the pacts they create, instead of questioning how they are being implemented.
Husseini also defended the accord saying: “I have come to the conclusion that people have neither read nor understood the Taif Accord.” He added that the problem goes beyond people’s misunderstanding of Taif, saying that implementation “has not been the result of lack of comprehension of the text.”

Copyright©Daily Star