I wrote this small piece on one of the Lebanese political forums. I am completely opposed to the idea of the election of Sleiman, and was disgusted when I saw the jeering.

Reading through the some of the Lebanees political forums, I am nothing but appalled from reading the "acceptance" and "cheering" for GMS as the "perfect" candidate, or the savior from vacuum.

I would just like to say that I am completely opposed to the mere mentioning of his name as a possible candidate for following reasons.

First, no one knows where his loyalties lie. He was appointed by the Syrians, and we do know if he kept in contact with the Syrians. His response in Naher El-Bared is not enough to ensure that he is a man that will put Lebanon's interests above all, especially after he acted as a representative of the state and contacted a foreign country on his own accord.

Second, his qualifications as a politician have been untested. He is a military man. However, while I am not opposed to an ex-military man running for president, I am extremely opposed to some one making the immediate transition from a soldier to a politician. How does he value differing opinions ? Will he be like Aoun and refuse a differing opinion? So many questions run through my head about this man. Why ? Because all I know is that he is a General and possibly a good soldier but all else ends there. Politics are left for politicians and military operations are left for military men, that's why we have a system in Lebanon that separates the two.

Third, you talk about the 14th of March wanted to respect the Patriarch's wished. How do you respect his wishes by amending the constitution, when he opposed it? And if he does not oppose it, how would you even accept a constitutional amendment solely for his highness ?

There is a concept that is very alien to the Lebanese mind. It's called the rule of law. Perhaps it has not taken shape because of the war, and before the war there was the politics of patrimony or "ma7soubiyet". The constitution is not a rag for the politicians to wipe their feet with. It is not something that you amend continuously for one person, who is the president.

In the past 18 years it has been amended 3 times perhaps even more, and maybe this time the 4th, for what ? No it wasn't amended to give people free health care, no it wasn't amended to give people the unabridged freedom of speech, and not it wasn't amended to give the Lebanese courts more power. It was amended for the the sole graces of the president, and the prolonging of his term, even though each one did a job worse than the other.

Some people argue that they prefer Sleiman over vacuum. This is probably a good justification, but it is not good enough. People have to start understanding that they cannot overstep the constitution whenever they feel like it. This has to stop somewhere. It was meant as a ceiling and not as a floor. If politicians can't understand that then the people never will.

I am not advocating a 50+1 president, although I would not mind it. But a president that has been elected *cough* appointed *cough* through a constitutional amendment, and accepts such a constitutional amendment is no different than Lahoud, and is no different than all the over glorified, over celebrated, over welcomed, and ego inflated failure of politicians that came before him.'

You want to build a country, start by respecting its constitution.