For the first time since 1988, the Lebanese presidential elections are drawing such a large amount of tension, conflicts and alignment on the local, regional and international levels. Indeed, in previous elections, everything went according to Syrian timing and decision. Amending the constitution was not something to be rejected or accepted, and it did not take much effort to pass a presidential mandate in the parliament, which only had to agree on it without further discussions with a higher power. However, despite the worry, danger, threats and promises, life has nowadays returned to the parliament, and political action within the institution has started, even if it often has a negative side. The presidential elections are thus taking their full democratic dimension despite the opposition’s threats to hamper and boycott them.
 
NOW Lebanon met with MP Boutros Harb, the most prominent presidential candidate and March 14’s consensus candidate. His good relations, diplomacy and contacts with opposition parties grant him every chance of gaining access to the presidency:

NOW: As elections are drawing near, your name is most often mentioned. What are your chances of winning? What are the chances of electing a president who is truly “made in Lebanon” after a long period of foreign interference?

Harb: In reality, we are fighting a twofold battle. The first one is to preserve our democratic system by performing our duty – as prescribed by the constitution – and electing a president for Lebanon within a definite timeframe to avoid a constitutional void. A void would lead to a state of paralysis that is not limited to the presidency, but would extend to the government and the parliament, and thus to the whole political and administrative sphere, and, unfortunately, it would affect the security Lebanon as well. The second aim is for us to be able to exercise the right to vote after the Syrian withdrawal freely and based on a national decision, which is something new for us. Indeed, we used to exercise this right in the past, but under Syrian custody and sponsorship some decisions were made on our behalf and dictated to us. By and large, the constitutional institutions used to agree on these decisions. I was one of the few people who dared say “no.” I did not approve of any decision that was imposed from abroad, and I filed for candidacy in 1998 and 2004. All this was to express my rejection of these practices even though I was quite aware that I had no chance of winning. It was a kind of refusal to bow to the orders that were dictated to the Lebanese. Hence, the importance of the current events springs from the fact that the decision is in the Lebanese people’s hands. If they exercise it well, Lebanon will have a president and the decision will have been made in Lebanon. In contrast, if they misuse it, the situation will explode, which must be avoided under all circumstances. I believe, therefore, that these elections entail a historical dimension and place Lebanon on a crossroads. Indeed, we will either head towards the construction of a modern, sovereign state, which is based on a democratic system that protects the people’s rights and freedom, or we head – Heaven forbid – in the opposite direction, towards destruction and chaos.

NOW: There is much talk now about reaching a consensus among all the Lebanese on the president’s name. According to leaked information, it seems that the other party is opposed to a president who loyal to a given party. Is it true that parliament Speaker Berri proposed your name – among others – as a consensus candidate?

Harb: In reality, the relationship which I built with Speaker Berri and which I strived to preserve, is not and has never been linked to the presidential elections. It is only by coincidence that this relationship has become a factor in the elections. In fact, our relationship is based on my conviction that Lebanon’s life is doomed if there is no dialogue among the political parties. I experienced this during the 1975 war as one of the independent Maronite MPs. We actually rejected partition because we were aware that it was not viable. Based on my steady conviction to this day that partition cannot succeed, I have viewed Berri as the parliament speaker, knowing that I do not see eye to eye with him on many things. I was one of the MPs who created the greatest amount of trouble, contestations and interventions within the parliament, as I clashed [repeatedly] with Speaker Berri. However, this has never gone beyond constitutional rule, which makes my relation with him a good, personal one that is based on respect. This does not mean that Speaker Berri is my ally or that I am his ally, nor does it mean that there is any political deal between him and myself regarding the presidential elections. Yet the current political reality transformed our relationship into a base on which to propose consensus-oriented projects. I cannot pretend that Speaker Berri backs my candidacy, but I know that there is a dialogue among us pertaining to general principles rather than any deals. I have heard of a funny story that I have struck a deal with Speaker Berri whereby I would not appoint PM Siniora as head of the government if I were elected. This is indeed laughable since it is not the president who decides the premier’s identity, but rather the parliamentary majority does. Furthermore, a person who wants to file for candidacy for the presidency cannot start with deals, promises and commitments. Those who called me during this period realized that I am not ready to make any promises, except to work according to my conscience in order to further my country’s interest. This would benefit Lebanon as a whole rather than one party to the detriment of another.

NOW: Do you have any contacts with people in the opposition besides Speaker Berri? With Hezbollah, for instance?

Harb: My contacts with Hezbollah have never stopped, and I have a good relationship with them even though I have not met with anyone from Hezbollah recently.

I do not have any problem with anyone. I have adopted a transparent style, and I have voiced my opinions regarding controversial issues in a clear statement in which I defined the problem and explained my vision for a solution. I was glad that when I proposed this platform this conception did not provoke any political party. I believe that this is a good indicator. Indeed, contrary to what is being said about the existence of major, deep-seated differences among the Lebanese, I think that there are major disagreements with regard to means of expression. However, there is a big possibility to reach an understanding if we start with clear national principles according to which there is no compromise and which pertain to the power and absolute sovereignty of the state.

NOW: Is it true that Hezbollah has certain conditions on which they would accept the forthcoming president? Were these conditions proposed to you?

Harb: No condition was proposed to me, and I did not inaugurate the ballet of conditions and counter-conditions. My candidacy is one of principle and is based on my history in politics, on my known political positions… as well as on my vision for a solution in Lebanon, my objectiveness and my readiness to deal with all Lebanese in order to build a state together, and to live together in security and harmony.

NOW: Yet arduous missions and major decisions await the forthcoming president, including the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons, extending the sovereignty of the state, implementing internal resolutions, the relation with Syria, the demarcation of the border, etc. Did you tackle these issues with Speaker Berri?

Harb: We have held dialogue meetings during which we discussed most problems. We have developed solutions for most of them, except for the presidency and Hezbollah’s weapons. We hope that there will be a consensus on the first issue and that the only one left will be that of Hezbollah’s weapons, which we had started discussing, but it all came to an end with the July War and the subsequent political developments. In my opinion, one of the first actions to be taken by the forthcoming president should be to bring the Lebanese together around a dialogue table at the presidential palace in order to make a decision regarding this issue and define the role of the resistance within the Lebanese state. I believe that it is possible to rebuild the confidence between the forthcoming president and the political forces [in the country] as it is possible for us to reach an agreement on how to solve the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons. Thus, rather than having Hezbollah remain in the South as a resistance movement against the Israeli aggression, we would turn the Lebanese state itself into one that resists this aggression. Therefore, this concern would be that of all the Lebanese people, instead of being the concern of the resistance, and instead of confining the confrontation of the Israeli enemy to Hezbollah and the inhabitants of the South. In such a case, Hezbollah cannot possibly say “no,” hang on to its right to make decisions pertaining to war and peace, and refuse to have the state join it as a partner in Lebanon’s defense because the state is not linked to any particular party.

NOW: Hezbollah is linked to a regional party. Therefore, will there be some kind of regional interference in order to solve this issue, or will the solution be a purely Lebanese one?

Harb: I believe that it will be a combination of both. Of course, the situation in Lebanon will have to be ready for a solution, and where is the problem if it needs some international and regional support? We do not live on an isolated island after all.

NOW: Do you think that Hezbollah would agree to have you as a consensus candidate?

Harb: You have to ask Hezbollah that but, based on my knowledge of Hezbollah, I believe that it is committed to General Michel Aoun. If he files for candidacy, Hezbollah will support him to the exclusion of all other candidates, and I respect this position. However, the question has to be asked in case General Aoun decides not to run or if his chances of winning are nil. Hezbollah would then remain on his side, but the most important thing is its participation in the electoral process. If the party supports and elects Michel Aoun, it does not mean that he is the others’ enemy. Should General Aoun reject the consensus and decide to wage the battle, as he said a few days ago, Hezbollah would join forces with him. But the party would not keep on abiding by Aoun’s position if he decides not to run or to boycott the electoral session. In the end, the power of decision in this matter is in Hezbollah’s hands.

NOW: Speaker Berri seems to have a different position than Hezbollah in this respect

Harb: There is coordination between Speaker Berri and Hezbollah, and, at the same time, some difference in opinions, but this still does not mean that there are contradictions.

NOW: We heard that some of March 14’s key leaders, namely Jumblatt and Geagea, do not support your candidacy. How true is it?

Harb: People were under the impression that it was true, and this was due to the method of my candidacy. Indeed, I decided to announce my candidacy during a press conference held in the parliament without inviting any MPs, while Nassib Lahoud decided to file for candidacy in a popular gathering, hence the invitation sent to MPs. In this respect, I do not know if the invitation was addressed to all MPs, or to those of the majority alone. Hence, several March 14 representatives were present in Lahoud’s candidacy conference, which gave the impression that he was the candidate of the March 14 alliance. This impression is false since Nassib is but one of the March 14 candidates. Compared to his candidacy, mine gave the impression that I was not the candidate of this alliance, as I did not invite any MP. Nevertheless, in reality, I think that the developments of the past couple of days have denied this.

NOW: Why is it being said that Nassib Lahoud is the candidate of the absolute majority quorum while Boutros Harb is a consensus candidate?

Harb: It is because I have already said that I do not wish to become a president if, during the electoral process, I feel that I may not succeed in my mission, which is to unite the state and save the country. Indeed, if there is a disagreement on the quorum, the president’s mission will be next to impossible, and this may lead to complications which will not help him solve problems. Hence, since there are other March 14 candidates, I decided that I would not run in this case, and I would renounce my candidacy in favor of one of them. People were under the impression that the others have accepted this situation because no one announced such a position, knowing that the contents of Lahoud’s platform make him a candidate who is suitable both for a consensus and a battle. I still prefer not to be a president for a battle in case of a dispute about the quorum, yet this does not mean that I will not be so in case there is no agreement on the quorum issue. In other words, if General Aoun decides to file for candidacy for the elections, Nassib and I will discuss who has the greatest chances to win. However, if the parliament convenes amidst a disagreement on the quorum, I have decided to withdraw my candidacy.

NOW: Will you vote if the electoral session is held according to the absolute majority quorum?

Harb: I will reach a decision on this matter in due time. However, there is a tendency to discuss this option in case all hope to reach a consensus fades away. We in the March 14 alliance are but one team and the mood is excellent among all March 14 candidates.

NOW: Which option would you prefer: The absolute majority or the void?

Harb: The void is – of course – very dangerous, but I will not develop my answer any further.

NOW: The Security Council and Arab Foreign Affairs ministers have reiterated their call to hold the elections on schedule and according to the constitutional principles. It seemed to some as a kind of intervention or pressure, which is exerted on the Lebanese…

Harb: We, as Lebanese, wish for the help of any party to organize the elections on schedule. Such help does not restrict our sovereignty except if they seek to make the decision in our name, which we refuse. However, given the difficulties that we are confronted with, if Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, France, the United States, Syria or the international community decide to help us organize the presidential elections without interfering in our choice or in our decision, then this is a positive thing rather than a negative one.

NOW: Following MP Antoine Ghanem’s assassination, the opposition accused the ruling party of attempting to internationalize the presidential elections…

Harb: Following these assassinations, majority MPs now fear for their lives and their fates, especially because the target has reversed the whole equation, so majority MPs would become a minority, and vice versa. I have proposed some ideas to tackle the Lebanese Security Services’ inability to solve crimes and prevent them from taking place. However, the truth is that no one before us has thought of asking for an international police force to protect the presidential elections. The political pressure, which can be seen in the latest position expressed by the Security Council, is a result of the position we have adopted. It is nothing more than this and we will not have it otherwise. I do not think that the presence of international forces may protect MPs, as security is linked to politics.

NOW: Do you feel that you are in danger, and do you feel as if you were placed under house arrest?

Harb: I am certainly aware of the danger because any person who is not aware of it is ignorant. Nevertheless, I am not under house arrest, as nothing prevents me from doing my duty while, of course, taking the necessary security measures and relying on God Almighty. He who works for the sake of his nation does not care if he is exposed to some danger.

NOW Lebanon: The March 8 forces have accused you and your March 14 allies of preventing the Constitutional Council, which last met in 2005, from functioning.  How do you defend March 14’s stance towards the Constitutional Council, and what do you envision as the Council’s future?

Harb: To be able to understand what happened on the level of the Constitutional Council, we should remember that it was formed during the Syrian presence in Lebanon. They formed the Constitutional Council through forces that were under their control. They were able to put pressure on these persons to render any decision they wanted. That's why when we had the new elections we considered that this Constitutional Council could not continue. Especially when, you know, the brother of the president has been elected to be a member of the Council, and the president is part of the game. That is, he has his position against some Lebanese, and especially the majority who was elected...  And many others who were elected were not any more capable -- [they] were selected by the Syrians to be in this Council.

That's why I personally submitted a draft law to change the law of the Constitutional Council in order to elect persons who are credible enough to be able to judge and to play that role.  We didn’t at all accept that the Council -- the current Council -- stops its work awaiting the new law.  But one of the presidential candidates, Robert Ghanem, presented a draft law asking that this Constitutional Council stop looking at the challenges to the election results of some members…Ghassan Moukheiber and I were the only two members of parliament who voted against it. The parliament voted on this draft law and the Constitutional Council decided that this law is against the constitution.  And we said that it should not be accepted. 

That’s why this constitutional council… didn’t stop because of what happened.  They stopped because they said they were not able to continue. And until… today, on the constitutional level, if they meet they can render the decisions they want. They are not meeting because they are afraid, because they decided not to continue. They stopped practicing their perogative; they stopped even getting the money they should have to continue. We tried to vote to select new members, but then the vote stopped when the war started and the cabinet fell down and the parliament did not meet. That is why we don’t have a Council. It is not our fault. It is their fault.  If the parliament was supposed to meet, if the government was supposed to continue, I am sure that the Council would be formed with new members, and they would have been able to look at all the MPs’ demands.

NOW: Do you believe Antoine Ghanem’s assassination has caused a change in outlook or strategy among the March 14 MPs regarding the presidential elections?

Harb: No. The first reaction was anger. That may have encouraged some of the March 14 MPs to go forward with elections with an absolute majority and neglect the proposal of the speaker of the house to reach an understanding on the presidential candidate. But, you know, it was an anger reaction.  Later on, several hours later, we accepted the initiative of Speaker Berri, and we are now trying to help him reach an understanding on the presidential candidate.

NOW: What security precautions have been made for the remaining pro-government MPs?

Harb: We are passing through a very difficult period on the security level. I decided to stay in my house. I took some security measures. If I am under the obligation to move, I take some measures to move incognito. Some others did not want to stay in their house, maybe they cannot afford special security measures and it is easier for the government to protect them when they are all together in the same place.

But, to be frank, all of us have the feeling that we are in danger. But it is our duty. We are not used to abandoning; we are not used to saying “we don’t want to continue because we are afraid.”  We are afraid, not panicked, but these are the risks of our job and we are doing our national duty. We know that when we do it there are some risks.

NOW: You and Nassib Lahoud are the two primary March 14 candidates for the presidency –

Harb: And we are also very close friends.

NOW: Do you see any differences between a Nassib Lahoud presidency and a Boutros Harb presidency?

Harb: He is taller than me!

If you study a little bit his program and mine, you see so many similar things.  But I think the difference is going to be in the behavior.  I think the difference will be in how to implement what you want: Can you open a dialogue with everybody when you are elected president or not?  Can you refuse or not?  Can you facilitate trust or not?

Nassib is a good guy, and I think he has all the potential if he is elected.  I think that I, personally, have some of this potential, too.  And I think that it would be good for Lebanon if Nassib or I were elected.