On Monday, the opposition threatened to withdraw from the cabinet if it didn’t get the portfolios it wanted. The warning not only begged the question of what privileges the majority has after winning the June 7 parliamentary elections, it also highlighted the potentially destructive pressure that has been brought to bear on the office of the president.
 
It is imperative that President Michel Sleiman take a rock solid position on the cabinet crisis, which on Monday entered its 70th day. It is his duty to end the current vacuum. Yes, he can reject Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri’s draft cabinet proposal, but, if he is to do so, he must also be seen to suggest constructive amendments that would lay the groundwork for dialogue.
 
To throw out Hariri’s list would be seen as playing to the opposition and would tarnish the office of the presidency. Sleiman would be seen as weak and a tool of a March 8 bloc that approved his appointment in June 2008, in the wake of the Doha agreement.
 
In short, Sleiman must act like a president, even if it might appear that in his designated role as ‘consensus president’ he is caught between a rock and a hard place, unable to fulfil his constitutional role because of his need to please all parties. However, if we are to believe the reports in the media, the list of names delivered to him on Monday by Hariri is a fair one. It should, therefore, be the basis for genuine discussion. If Sleiman can initiate dialogue, he will be seen both as a unifier and the defender of the constitution. It is his opportunity to regain the commanding heights in this prolonged battle for the cabinet.
 
In this scenario, the opposition will have to come to the negotiating table or risk ridicule. It is an open secret that Syria wants a Lebanese government formed from Damascus. The dream scenario is one in which Hariri, unable to form a government, steps down, opening the door for a Syria-friendly candidate such as Najib Mikati, who headed the interim government prior to the 2005 elections. Such an eventuality would be a devastating blow for a movement that has struggled so hard, and shed so much blood, to keep a grip on its democratic and sovereign aspirations.
 
It is already bad enough that those who voted in the June 7 polls have seen the sanctity of their national suffrage dragged through the mud by an opposition that, having failed to prevail legitimately, has sought to stymie the prime minister-designate’s constitutional duty to form a government in consultation with, and only with, the president. That it has done this by hinting at the possibility of what has become a culture of obstruction, intimidation and even violence if it does not get its way, is further reason why Sleiman must be seen to snuff out such eventualities by forcing both sides to face up to their national duties.
 
It is imperative, that, in this volatile environment, the credibility of the constitution, respect for Taif and the offices of state be preserved. This duty, by force of circumstance, today falls upon the shoulders of the president. If the opposition refuses any form of negotiation, he can, and must for the sake of Lebanon, sign off on Hariri’s list. He would have given the opposition every opportunity to enter into talks on the national unity government they so craved. In doing so, he would have fulfilled is ad hoc role as consensus president, and his constitutional role.
 
Lebanon has faced crisis after crisis as the opposition has sought to overturn the gains of March 14, 2005. From December 2006 till May 2008, it tried to starve the government into submission and then force it from office at gunpoint. It stalled on the selection of a president and now, once again, it is throwing up obstacles to get the best deal in a contest it lost fair and square.
 
Sleiman must protect the constitution. It is his final line of defence.