The president of the Free Patriotic Movement, Deputy Gebran Bassil, outlined the trajectory of issues with the "four deputies" who were either dismissed or resigned from the Movement, detailing the violations they committed. He referred to the numerous attempts made to retain them while ensuring their commitment and emphasized that the Movement will grow stronger and continue to be the advocate for major Lebanese causes. He noted that a deliberate solidarity formed between the four deputies, which ultimately harmed the unity of the Movement. Bassil explained that after the 2022 elections, the situation began to formalize when the deputies did not comply with electoral requirements, even giving themselves a distinct name.
In a television interview on OTV, Bassil stressed that "the deputies who left the Movement did not run for its presidency in 2019 or 2023." He added, "If they were dissatisfied with my leadership, it would have been more appropriate for one of them to run for the position." He questioned, "If there was an issue with the system, why did they not propose an amendment?"
Bassil further asserted that "all the well-known names who resigned from the Movement did so because they sought positions of power but did not receive them." He highlighted that "at the same time, there are many who have become examples of dedication, despite serving only one term, such as former deputies Shamel Mouzaya, Hikmat Deeb, Naji Gharios, and Roger Azar."
Regarding the decision-making process within the Movement, Bassil clarified that "while the Movement’s system is presidential, in practice, all decisions are made through consultation and full consensus, and the results are organic." He added, "Regarding the presidential file, I informed them that I would participate in the decision-making process, and we reached a decision by consensus."
Bassil reflected on the previous parliamentary elections in 2018 and 2022. He mentioned that in 2022, the four deputies requested him not to hold internal elections, resulting in their replacement by an internal poll. He emphasized that the Movement has never, at any time, issued directives to its members to allocate votes to one candidate over another. He pointed out, "In Metn, there was general sympathy towards Edy Maalouf due to the nature of the competition with the Lebanese Forces, but this did not alter the outcome, as Ibrahim Kanaan and Elias Bou Saab were elected with fewer votes than Maalouf. However, this was not the result of a decision."
He noted that a similar situation occurred in Keserwan in 2018 with Colonel Chamel Roukoz, who lamented not receiving all the Movement's votes, despite winning first place. The concern was to secure the election of another candidate, Roger Azar, alongside Roukoz. Bassil explained that without a vote distribution, Azar would have lost, allowing a non-Movement candidate to win. A similar scenario occurred in Byblos with Walid Khoury.
On the subject of his relationship with Deputy Ziad Aswad, Bassil emphasized his efforts to ensure Aswad's continued presence in the Movement. "In the 2018 elections in Jezzine, I observed an electoral movement by Jean Aziz. I told him in front of President Michel Aoun that I was responsible for implementing the Movement's system, which included Aswad and Amal Bou-Zeid, and that Aziz could not surpass them." He added, "Aziz had the right to campaign, but he could not win internal elections, and I honored the system by backing Aswad and Bou-Zeid. In 2022, I refused to drop Aswad, despite requests from other parties, and we fought the electoral battle without alliances to avoid any perception of unfairness."
Regarding Deputy Elias Bou Saab, Bassil asked, "Does anyone believe that, as president of the Movement, I could instruct a deputy to act independently?" He added, "Despite enduring a lot of criticism, some claimed that Bou Saab was financing the Movement." He revealed that in the 2022 elections, Bou Saab said he could not comply with the internal mechanism due to his commitments in Arab countries. "Because I care for him, I encouraged him to run, even though he could not be on the same list as Ibrahim Kanaan," Bassil explained. "When Bou Saab failed to adhere to the presidency issue, I referred him to the Council of Elders and waited nine months."
Bassil further noted that during the deputy speaker elections in Parliament, he spoke with Bou Saab and asked for his commitment. Bou Saab replied, "Do you doubt my commitment?" Bassil expressed concern over Bou Saab aligning with someone as influential as President Berri, as had happened with Elie Ferzli.
On the subject of Jihad Azour's candidacy, Bassil said, "We decided not to nominate anyone from the Movement for the presidency. Later, we adopted a candidate after holding individual meetings, especially with the 'four deputies.' We reviewed the names within the political body and reached consensus on Jihad Azour, though the four deputies had other inclinations, which I had warned them about."
He added, "After agreeing on Azour's candidacy, I met each of them individually and cautioned them against violating the agreement. Bou Saab stated he did not vote for Azour, while Alain Aoun claimed he exercised his right to vote freely. After alerting them, I referred them to the Council of Elders, telling Alain Aoun to attend. I waited nine months for Bou Saab as well."
Bassil explained, "When I decided to dismiss them, the others aligned with Bou Saab and Alain Aoun. Kanaan sent a written letter, and I spoke to him at length over two sessions. Alain Aoun tried to justify his commitment, and I held a meeting with him and the Baabda youth, emphasizing that I never asked him for anything personal or sought media attention. We later received a document highlighting differences in commitment between his national responsibilities and those to the Movement."
On his relationship with Deputy Alain Aoun, Bassil said, "He was not competing with anyone in Baabda, and I always praised him for that. I told him that I required nothing from him except his commitment to the Movement." He continued, "What mattered was that he deliberately provoked and challenged the Movement in the media, and people noticed this. We fought tirelessly to defend him, only for him to make alliances outside the Movement."
Bassil remarked that the Movement faced significant challenges on October 17. He asked, "How could President Michel Aoun be abandoned during a struggle for survival, which would have played into the hands of others seeking to undermine us?" He added that the four deputies did not confront these challenges during the Movement’s crisis, which became part of its targeting.
Regarding Deputy Simon Abi Ramia, Bassil said that he contributed to creating a separatist faction within the Movement and linked his continued membership to Deputy Alain Aoun's involvement. Abi Ramia, according to Bassil, engaged in meetings and communications abroad without the leadership’s knowledge.
On his relationship with Deputy Ibrahim Kanaan, Bassil stated, "If Kanaan believes he contributed to my accession to the Movement's presidency and General Michel Aoun's presidency of the Republic, I thank him on behalf of President Aoun." Bassil noted that Kanaan had previously negotiated with him regarding the presidency of the Movement and had made another attempt following Deputy Elias Bou Saab's dismissal. Bassil reiterated, "I want nothing, but when a decision is made, everyone must respect it."
Previously, Kanaan had made an attempt at the presidency of the movement, and today, after the dismissal of Deputy Elias Bou Saab, he made another. I assured him that I did not desire anything for myself, but once a decision is issued, everyone must abide by it. This in no way diminishes anyone’s capabilities or relationships.
Bassil explained that Kanaan’s actions in the media appeared as though he was initiating a reunion, while in reality, he was instigating division within the team. He pointed out that it would have been more effective if Kanaan had set an example of discipline, as he had not attended the political body for a long time. When summoned by the Council of Elders and scheduled for a session, he submitted his resignation.
Bassil emphasized that his dynamic with Kanaan had started back in 2005, stating, “Everyone has ambitions, which cannot be denied, but the issue arises when there is no respect for the institution.” He explained that the story began when the movement decided not to nominate anyone from within its ranks, with the goal being to avoid bearing responsibility for obstruction or failure, particularly since the country is facing existential threats.
On internal economic issues and parliamentary committee work, Bassil acknowledged that Kanaan performed well in many instances as head of the Finance Committee, turning difficult acquittals into law and demonstrating seriousness in his work. However, Bassil also noted that this did not preclude the existence of certain negative aspects.
He continued, “There are differing perspectives on the economy. The movement had an economic committee led by Charbel Kurdahi and Mansour Bteish, which annoyed Ibrahim since someone else was involved. However, this is not a matter for intimidation.” Regarding the Lazar plan, Bassil said, “We reached conclusions and had five remarks. There’s a difference between presenting observations and discarding the plan altogether. The Finance Committee included everyone, so responsibility does not rest solely on Kanaan.” He added, “This gave us the impression of the involvement of the banking sector, regardless of individual responsibility or injustice. We paid the price for this in Metn when Jad Ghosn garnered the votes he received.”
He added, “Ibrahim negotiated with me for a paper on how to take decisions and maintain commitment, but I only accepted adherence to the principle of commitment.”
Bassil stressed that “there are irregularities within the movement, and I do not want any of the four deputies to be harmed. However, that does not justify cases being filed against young people from the movement, noting that what he endured with President Aoun was far more, and such measures were never taken.” He added, “We are warning internally not to harm anyone, but people are angry that these four deputies left all at once.” He said, “We were in an abnormal state in the movement, and now we are in a healthy one. There is much I still have to say about what transpired.”
He then asked, “Who benefits from all these calls for resignations? Is it in service of personal ambitions or a breakthrough in the presidency?”
He added, “The Patriarch has spoken to me many times about the intersection of interests, and as soon as we achieved the balance adjustment, we started asking within the movement who was committed to the presidential elections.”
Regarding the Riad Salameh case, Bassil emphasized that while Salameh is a symbol of the issue, he is not the only one involved. There are broader systemic factors that must be addressed. He noted that arresting Salameh for one issue while neglecting others will not satisfy the movement. He further explained that while part of the deposits could be recovered, not all will be, and that this would require a series of measures. He added, “I will not deceive the people regarding the deposit file. Another Riad Salameh could emerge as long as we continue with the same rentier economic approach.”
Responding to the statement by Lebanese Forces President Samir Geagea that dismantling the movement would be beneficial for Lebanon, Bassil said, “There is a vested interest in the Lebanese Forces remaining, regardless of Samir Geagea. Bashir’s opinion of him is well known. I do not claim that the Marada have not done good for Lebanon, and the presence of other forces is beneficial to your policies.”
He stressed that proposals regarding the electoral law serve only as distractions from the presidency of the republic. He pointed out that any changes to the law should aim at improving representation, not diminishing it, and emphasized that the issue of expatriates should not be used as a pretext for extending mandates. He said, “I know the intentions behind the two preferential votes and who among the four deputies was complicit in them. The intentions were not healthy, and this only adds another layer of complexity to the country’s challenges.”
Bassil concluded by saying, “When the movement is weakened, it weakens all the people. However, I assure you that the movement has emerged stronger from this adversity. Commitment does not negate diversity in expressing opinions and ideas, but chaos must end because it is discipline that leads to achievement, without turning the movement into an absolute, rigid party.”