January 10, 2025
Nasser Kandil
President General Joseph Aoun’s inaugural speech may well be the first presidential address to genuinely align with the spirit of the Taif Agreement in defining the role of the President of the Republic. Post-Taif, successive presidents, influenced by their personalities, the circumstances surrounding their ascension, and the domestic and international support they enjoyed, often sought to emulate the pre-Taif presidential role. Whether they possessed the means for such emulation or not, the notion of a ‘strong president’ remained an enduring fixation. Presidents frequently appealed to sectarian populism, implying they could restore the presidency’s lost prerogatives through practice, framing it as a symbol of Christian political presence, given it is the highest office allocated to Christians. This aspiration persisted during and after Syria’s dominance in Lebanon.
In contrast, this oath of office speech delineated the president’s role with precision, portraying the president as an impartial arbiter among the constitutional branches – legislative, executive, and judicial. The president pledged to safeguard their cooperation and independence. Notably, the speech emphasised preparing a draft law to guarantee judicial independence, aligning with the Taif Agreement’s provisions that have yet to be fully realised in legal practice.
The speech employed measured language regarding commitments. Personal pledges were substituted with affirmations of the state’s rights. For instance, rather than committing to specific policies, the speech highlighted collaborative efforts with the government or the initiation of discussions. For example, the speech affirmed the state’s exclusive right to arms, translating this into a call for deliberations on a comprehensive defense policy. Similarly, judicial independence was tied to collaboration with the government on relevant legislation. Administrative restructuring was envisioned in partnership with Parliament and the government. Relations with Syria, particularly concerning the priority of refugee repatriation, were presented within a framework of immediate, actionable mechanisms to be developed jointly with Parliament and the forthcoming government.
The address reflected pragmatic and well-considered reformist aspirations. While recognising the need for new horizons, it deferred specific details to national dialogue and collaboration among state institutions. For example, the speech acknowledged the need for electoral law reforms to enhance accountability, representation, and power rotation. It also mentioned expanding administrative decentralisation to alleviate citizens’ hardships and foster sustainable development. However, the speech refrained from proposing specific frameworks for these issues or for others, such as rotating key public positions inline with Article 95 of the Constitution not to allocate positions to a sect, or enhancing social security, public schools, and the Lebanese University.
On critical national issues, the speech tackled sensitive topics, including Israeli occupation and aggression, Palestinian camps, and Syrian displacement, with a carefully balanced tone. On the occupation and resistance arms, the speech avoided aligning with polarised internal or external expectations. It neither adopted the rhetoric of resistance nor echoed its adversaries. Regarding Palestinian camps, it advocated state sovereignty while upholding refugees’ human dignity and their right to return. On Syrian displacement, it called for urgent repatriation plans devoid of racist undertones.
On the most contentious matter – the interplay between liberation, Israeli aggression, and resistance arms – the speech skillfully avoided rigid templates. It echoed a methodology championed by the late Prime Minister Salim al-Hoss: identifying issues and framing problems without abandoning principles in pursuit of solutions. Abandoning a cause to resolve a problem often creates new challenges. The key lies in addressing problems without compromising the cause or neglecting the challenges they pose.
Here, the cause is Lebanon’s protection, the liberation of its occupied territories, and the defense of its sovereignty against aggression. The problem lies in reconciling this with the state’s exclusive right to arms, while the resistance currently assumes the tasks of liberation and defense. The speech proposed a formula: the state must bear responsibility for liberation, warfare, and defense, which requires investment in the military. Simultaneously, it called for discussions on a national security strategy, including a defense policy.
This approach encourages realistic exploration of solutions, phased planning, and incremental progress without undermining the overarching cause. The goal remains liberation and resistance to aggression, coupled with affirming the state’s monopoly on arms. In this interim, the speech advocates leveraging military capabilities and finding sovereign mechanisms to manage all arms until reaching a stage where no additional weapons are needed.
