BEIRUT: This month marked the 25th anniversary of the Taif Accord that ended Lebanon’s devastating 1975-90 Civil War amid clear signs that the new Constitution has failed to ensure political stability and equal power-sharing between Muslims and Christians in the turbulent country. However, despite its snags, analysts call on the Lebanese to uphold the Arab-mediated Accord, warning that the alternative is a renewal of sectarian strife.
The failure of the Taif Accord to achieve stability has manifested itself in a series of sharp political crises that has gripped Lebanon since the pact was signed by Muslim and Christian parliamentarians in the Saudi city of Taif on Oct. 22, 1989, following a Saudi-Syrian mediation backed by the United States and France.
The country has now been without a president for nearly five months after Parliament failed to elect a successor to former President Michel Sleiman over a lack of quorum as a result of political differences between the rival factions.
The presidential impasse has left Parliament legislation in paralysis, while threatening to cripple the government’s work. The presidential deadlock is one of loopholes that the Taif Accord failed to address.
A major hitch of the Taif Accord’s political system has been reflected in the failure to hold parliamentary elections on time last year as well as next month, and in resorting to the bitter choice of extending Parliament’s mandate for a full four-year term, an expected move viewed as a major setback to the country’s democratic system.
However, despite all its drawbacks and snags, the Taif Accord is seen as the only means to prevent the country from again sliding into chaos and civil war. The 1975-90 war killed more than 150,000 people and left the country’s infrastructure and economy in ruins with damage estimated at more than $5 billion.
While critics have demanded major amendments to the accord, its supporters acknowledged that there are gaps that need to be filled in order for the pact to function properly and confront the country’s political, security and economic challenges.
“The Taif Accord is today more valid and suitable for Lebanon than at any time before. There is no alternative to this ruling formula. The problem with those who criticized the accord is that they did not read it well and did not understand it or grasp it,” Samir Franjieh, a political writer and a former March 14 lawmaker, told The Daily Star.
“Tampering with this accord is a grave blunder. This accord should be applied in the Arab world to shield it from sliding into civil wars as is currently happening in some Arab countries,” he said, referring to Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya.
Franjieh warned that Lebanon was currently standing at “a critical juncture” that could make or break it as a result of the grave repercussions of the Syrian conflict on the volatile country.
“We either return to civil war or we go to peace,” he said.
“The road to reaching peace is easy: the implementation of the Taif Accord. This accord has placed sectarian coexistence as the basis of the state’s legitimacy.”
Franjieh said the Taif Accord was good for the Arab world. “This accord conforms between the concept of citizenship and the concept of plurality and sectarian diversity,” he said. “This Lebanese experiment should be applied in the Arab world. The Taif formula protects the Arab world from endless civil wars.”
The accord essentially curtailed the Maronite president’s powers and shifted them to the half-Muslim, half-Christian Cabinet, which is headed by a Sunni prime minister. The pact’s signing followed persistent demands by Muslim leaders for political reforms to achieve equal power sharing with Christians.
Among the main provisions that have not been implemented is the creation of a national committee to abolish “political sectarianism,” or the ruling sectarian system that allots key government posts along sectarian lines, the creation of a senate to serve alongside the current 128-member legislature, decentralization and the adoption of a new electoral law.
The accord also legitimized the Syrian military presence in Lebanon, allowing Damascus to have the final say over strategic policies and exploit the power struggle among the country’s major sects to its advantage.
Sami Nader, a professor of economics and international relations at Universite St. Joseph, concurred that there was no alternative to the Taif Accord as a power-sharing system between Muslims and Christians.
“I think the accord is still valid as a power-sharing formula between Muslims and Christians and to safeguard sectarian coexistence,” Nader told The Daily Star. “What is required is the implementation of the remaining provisions in the Taif Accord. The alternative to the Taif Accord is a renewal of sectarian violence.”
“Modus operandi can be revived to better serve the principle of checks and balances, which is the cornerstone of democracy,” said Nader, also the director of the Levant Institute for Strategic Affairs, a Beirut-based think tank.
Nader called for the full implementation of the Taif Accord’s remaining provisions, namely decentralization, a new electoral law to ensure a fair representation in Parliament, the creation of a senate and the abolition of “political confessionalism.”
“We must go back to the spirit of the Taif Accord and the proposed reforms with regard to decentralization, the creation of a senate and the adoption of a new fair electoral law,” he said, adding: “In my view, the best electoral law is one-man, one vote.”
Nader said the change in the balance of power in favor of Hezbollah and its March 8 allies has posed a challenge to the Taif Accord.
“The change of the balance of power has put the Taif Accord in danger. I am worried about the accord from Hezbollah’s behavior and the situation in the region as a result of the collapse of borders between states,” he said.
“A spillover of the Syrian conflict and Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria have challenged the state’s border and state authority,” he added.
Nader cited what he called “breaches” in the accord that need to be addressed in order to avert serious political crises in the future, like the ongoing presidential deadlock.
Recalling that it took Prime Minister Tammam Salam more than 10 months to form his Cabinet, Nader said the Taif Accord should have set “a timeframe” for a prime minister-designate to set up a government.
Similarly, the Taif Accord should have created a mechanism to avert a presidential vacuum when Parliament fails to elect a new head of state at the end of the incumbent president’s term, he said.
As a way to avoid a vacancy in the top Christian post, Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai has demanded a constitutional amendment that would allow a president to serve in a caretaker capacity when his mandate ends until a successor is elected.
While Speaker Nabih Berri, former Prime Minister Saad Hariri and MP Walid Jumblatt are staunch supporters of the Taif Accord, Rai and Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun have called for the accord to be amended in order to boost the president’s powers. Before the end of his term, former President Michel Sleiman also called for a constitutional amendment to improve the president’s powers.
Rai said a solution to Lebanon’s recurring political crises required the amendment of the Taif Accord to enhance the president’s prerogatives. “Can the president solve problems if he is denied prerogatives?” Rai said. “The Taif Accord is not divine. We all approved it but there are gaps that need to be filled.”