The recent designation of Judge Nawaf Salam as Lebanon’s Prime Minister has sparked intense debate, especially in light of remarks attributed to Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri. During a meeting with President Joseph Aoun and Salam, Berri reportedly claimed that Salam’s appointment contradicts the Constitution’s principles relating to the National Pact and coexistence. His remarks suggested that the move undermines the representation of Lebanon’s Shiite community, a point that has fueled significant political discourse.

Constitutional Expert Challenges Berri’s Interpretation

Dr. Adel Yammine, a constitutional expert, rejected Berri’s interpretation, asserting that the mandatory parliamentary consultations carried out by President Aoun, as stipulated in Article 53 of the Constitution, remain in full compliance with the principles of the National Pact.

Speaking to Annahar, Yammine clarified that “the issue of the National Pact applies to the formation of the government, not the designation of the Prime Minister, which in itself does not create authority. The real test lies in the government’s composition.”

He further explained that the National Pact cannot be used to justify obstructive tactics or the rejection of equitable offers for participation in the Council of Ministers. Article 95 of the Lebanese Constitution, Yammine emphasized, requires fair representation for all sects.

Yammine emphasized that representation should account for both numerical strength and the influence of representatives within their sect, coupled with parliamentary share.

“If representatives with significant influence are selected from one sect while less influential figures are chosen from another, it disrupts the National Pact and leads to an imbalance that must be addressed. However, if a sect rejects all fair offers made for it to join the government, a deadlock emerges and, consequently, the Prime Minister is compelled to explore alternative solutions for the national interest and proceed with forming a government.”

Legal Analysis Supports Salam’s Designation

Dr. Paul Morcos, founder of the Justicia Consult Law Firm and Dean of the International Executive School in Strasbourg, echoed Yammine’s perspective, affirming that Salam’s designation aligns with constitutional requirements and respects the National Pact.

“The designation of Judge Nawaf Salam is rooted in the constitutional parliamentary consultations conducted by the President of the Republic. It does not violate the Constitution,” Morcos told Annahar.

Morcos highlighted that the process adhered to the National Pact, as Shiite MPs were invited to participate in the consultations. Although they had the right to abstain from nominating a candidate, their decision does not diminish the constitutional legitimacy of Salam’s designation.

Morcos further elaborated that the National Pact, as outlined in the Preamble to the Constitution in conjunction with Article 95, does not mandate unanimous sectarian support for the designation of a Prime Minister.

Therefore, a sectarian party’s refusal to endorse the Prime Minister-designate does not undermine the constitutionality or legitimacy of the appointment.

A Path Forward

The debate surrounding Judge Nawaf Salam’s designation underscores the intricate balance of constitutional principles and sectarian representation in Lebanon’s governance. As the focus shifts to forming a government, the ability to uphold the National Pact while navigating political complexities will be critical in determining the country’s next steps. Whether Salam’s appointment leads to a functioning and inclusive government remains to be seen, but the legal framework supporting his designation offers a pathway for moving forward.