The president of the Free Patriotic Movement, MP Gebran Bassil, addressed the government formation process, highlighting two major flaws in a recent development. He explained:

“First, the meeting for issuing decrees took place without prior agreement between President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister-designate Nawaf Salam, leading to an unprecedented and problematic failure to issue decrees.”

He further noted: “It also became evident that the President of Parliament has now assumed a role in government formation, effectively making his approval a prerequisite for its issuance.”

Bassil stressed that this situation establishes an unconstitutional precedent and creates an imbalance of power not stipulated in the constitution. He criticized the lack of transparency and clarity, warning that such dangerous behavior could lead to political confrontation. He attributed these issues to the failure to adopt clear and consistent criteria, which he believes would have ensured a smoother government formation.

Rejecting Participation in a Flawed Government

Bassil reaffirmed that the absence of proper criteria hindered the government’s birth and prevented his party from participating in a cabinet where “good and bad people” were mixed together. He declared: “Even if others accept this, we will not. We are not attached to power. The easiest choice for us is to go into the opposition.”

He then highlighted the bias, discrimination, and inconsistency in the application of criteria, stating:

“Among the Druze, the proposed names and portfolios were swiftly approved. The Shiites had the right to name their representatives, with the Prime Minister merely approving or rejecting them—even if they named politicians outside the set criteria. However, the same privilege was denied to others. The Prime Minister himself named politicians and awarded them the Ministry of Finance, yet blocked similar requests from others.”

Bassil continued: “When objections were raised or alternative names suggested, the response was final: ‘This is the name.’ Meanwhile, other names were either immediately accepted or requested to be changed—except for one particular name, which was introduced from abroad to ensure Shiite representation was not monopolized. This, in turn, led to a government deadlock.”

A Call for Equal Standards

Bassil argued that the crisis could be easily resolved if the same criteria were applied universally. He pointed out that while the Prime Minister-designate unilaterally selected Christian and Sunni ministers, ignoring objections, the Christian faction attempted to turn their marginalization into a ‘victory’ by claiming they had secured one or two portfolios—portfolios they had previously rejected in the media.

He criticized the Lebanese Forces for legitimizing this unconstitutional practice, saying:

“By accepting this arrangement, they provided cover for a new disaster for Christians. They did so merely to claim victory, at the cost of enshrining a precedent that excludes us from government.”

Historical Parallels and Political Exclusion

Bassil compared the current events to past betrayals, stating:

“In 1990, the Taif Agreement and the entry into Baabda Palace were accepted just to remove Michel Aoun. Similarly, the Orthodox electoral law was scrapped just to prevent Aoun’s victory. The same is happening today: powers that belong to the President of the Republic in government formation are being surrendered—simply because Michel Aoun exercises them.”

He accused his opponents of prioritizing political elimination over Christian interests:

“This is a pattern in their history—sacrificing Christian rights just to eliminate one political opponent.”

Unequal Representation in Government Formation

Bassil turned to the issue of unequal distribution of portfolios, questioning how:
• A small political bloc secures four portfolios, while a bloc four times its size is given only two non-essential portfolios.
• A medium-sized bloc gets two major portfolios, while a larger bloc gets only two minor ones.

These inconsistencies, he argued, undermine fair representation and obstruct government formation.

He emphasized: “We refuse to be treated this way. We support the presidential mandate, we want to contribute to Lebanon’s success, and we facilitated the appointment of the Prime Minister. We are willing to participate in the government without unreasonable demands. However, there are forces deliberately seeking to exclude us, and while we are cooperating, we will not compromise on the fundamental rights of the community we represent.”

Defending Christian Representation

Bassil warned against surrendering Christian political rights, stating:

“If the Lebanese Forces or others were in our position, they would never have accepted such a loss. Accepting and signing off on this arrangement would mean abandoning everything we fought for. It would mean submission and the acceptance of diminished rights.”

He further emphasized:

“The Free Patriotic Movement will not accept anyone naming representatives on our behalf. While we understand the need for competent, specialized, and effective ministers, and we accept that the President and Prime Minister can have reservations on certain names, we will not tolerate external forces choosing our representatives—just as they did with the Lebanese Forces.”

Rejecting Undersized Representation

Bassil rejected any effort to shrink the movement’s representation, stating:

“We will not accept fewer seats than we deserve—this is the right of the people we represent. Nawaf Salam is taking seats from our share to bolster his own, appointing a disproportionate number of Christian ministers for his personal quota. The scale of this move is unacceptable. Would he dare do the same with other sects, or is this discrimination only applied to Christians and Sunnis?”

Rejecting Political Labeling

He also dismissed attempts to align the Free Patriotic Movement with any specific faction:

“We have paid a heavy price for our political independence. Why insist on counting us as part of a team with whom we have no alliance or agreement? Our past actions prove this—we elected the President of the Republic and named the Prime Minister independently. Had we followed the Shiite duo’s wishes, Najib Mikati would have been Prime Minister instead of Nawaf Salam. So how can we be counted as part of a Shiite-led blocking third?”

Bassil insisted that any concerns about the Shiite duo obtaining a blocking third should be resolved by reducing their ministerial quota or securing a commitment from them not to disrupt governance—not by reducing the Free Patriotic Movement’s seats.

A Call for Fair Governance

Bassil urged the Prime Minister-designate to rectify these imbalances, expressing hope that he would enact positive change rather than worsen the situation. He reaffirmed that the President of the Republic remains the ultimate guarantor of constitutional implementation.

He warned against dragging the country into confrontation and called for solidarity in the face of upcoming political and regional challenges, stating:

“The people will make their voices heard on February 14 and February 23, and we must respect that. Another significant moment will come on February 18.”

He concluded by warning of serious developments on the Lebanese-Syrian border and after February 18, and seismic regional shifts, stressing that national unity is essential to prevent internal conflict.