The compelling reasons cited to validate the current extension centered mostly on the uncertainty of the political and security situation, which were seen to complicate the actual elections and also the planning of the electoral campaign. Laws no. 1/76 and 3/78 had extended the life of Parliament on account of war and other extraneous circumstances. The law implemented in May this year was allegedly proposed to shun sedition and contain the potential repercussions of the critical conflicts besetting us. Hence, by the power of MPs, concepts such as elections and change of political power have become threats to national peace.

To justify today’s extension of Parliament’s life based on previous examples is, in fact, a huge mistake. The current status quo is by no means equivalent or comparable to the one that prevailed during the Civil War, and even then the latter did not occur spontaneously but was the result of exhaustive legislative and legal debates.

First Extension Draft Law

The then Parliament was elected between the 12th and 30th of April 1972 and its term of office was supposed to have expired on May 2, 1976. However, the outbreak of war on April 13, 1975 made it difficult, if not impossible, to hold the elections as scheduled and thus entailed the issuance of the first-ever decision to extend Parliament’s term.

Having realized that the war was unlikely to end in the near future, the Cabinet convened a session on Wednesday, 14th of January 1976- approximately 6 months prior to the expiry of the legislature’s term- which was headed by the then President of the Republic Suleiman Frangieh. The session took place in the presence of PM Rahid Karami and the rest of ministers with the exception of the Minister of Interior Camille Chamoun, who could not get from Saadiyat to the Baabda Presidential Palace, and Minister Ghassan Tueini, who was extending condolences on behalf of the President over the death of a former minister. Extending the life of the legislature was on the table and the session was dedicated to addressing the circumstances and compelling reasons for such an extension. The ministers conceded that holding the elections under the existing circumstances was out of question. Thus, an emergency law was drafted stipulating that Parliament’s term be extended by a year on account of the ongoing war.

Several political and juristic stances greeted the extension, some of which supported the decision, others were sympathetic, or objected.

- Pro-extension positions

Prime Minister Rashid Karami: “..a constitutional vacuum has been avoided and we have decided to prolong the legislature’s life span by one year. We will send an emergency draft-law to this end.”

Interior Minister Camille Chamoun: “..I find myself coerced to agree over this unprecedented first. Given the delicacy of the current status quo, the extension of Parliament’s term seems inevitable against the impossibility of holding the elections under these circumstances. Similar precedents have been established in Britain and France during the First World War. Democratic systems are prepared for any emergency and it is always possible to fill any constitutional void through legislation and laws.”

Health Minister, Prince Majid Arslan: “..One cannot hold elections in the presence of weapons and grudges. The government approved the draft-law extending Parliament’s term by one year, and Parliament might prolong it even further.

Head of Administration and Justice Committee, MP Nathem Al-Qadiri: “..There exists no connection between the extension of Parliament’s term and the amendment of the constitution in preparation for the extension of the presidential term, especially that the presidential elections would take place by the end of summer, meaning it would be possible to elect a President for the Republic in stable and safe conditions.”

MP Mounir Abou Fadel: “..Whereas conducting the elections seems impractical amid the rising tensions and the proliferation of weapons; whereas the government had extended the tenures of municipal councils and Mukhtars for the same reasons; I cannot see any constitutional obstacle to the extension of Parliament’s term.”

Jurist Edmond Rabbat: “..The issue has been raised for two years now. It would be futile to deny that the legislative branch has the right to amend the electoral law and to give such an amendment immediate effect, thus pushing the expiry of Parliament’s term until a further date, especially that Parliament’s life is set out in the electoral law, not in the constitution, as underlined by the Prime Minister. This matter which has been a subject of controversy for over a year has now become accepted as axiomatic.”

About parliamentary mandate, Jurist Rabbat said: “the parliamentary mandate differs, in its legal nature, from the concept of mandate in private affairs. The elections were nothing but a means to form the legislature and reflect the will of the people. The mandate was granted so that Parliament, as whole, not as individual deputies, exercises legislation for the benefit of the people. The extension of the legislature’s term was no new constitutional contrivance as it had often occurred in foreign countries as a result of the both world wars.”

- Positions showing understanding

President of the Beirut Bar Roger Chikhani: “..The matter of extending Parliament’s term may be approached or interpreted in two ways. The first is a narrow interpretation suggesting that the legislature cannot stretch out its own term of office on the grounds that Article 24 of the Constitution prescribes that MPs be elected, not appointed. Therefore the extension stifles the spirit of the constitution and the will of the people.

The second interpretation holds that, according to Article 27 of the Constitution, parliamentary mandate is a kind of mandate granted for a specified period and binding the agent and the principal to certain rights and duties. However, Article 27 gives agents full liberty to legal disposition and legislation but does allow voters the right to subject them to any previous conditions or obligations. Therefore, the law should be interpreted wisely and in light of the current state of affairs. In principle, the jurist is inclined not to expand its interpretation but the executor cannot conform to this propensity and must enforce the laws in light of the facts marking his rule.”

Chikhani concluded by saying “regardless of the interpretation, the constitutional vacuum must be avoided before it occurs. This is the main wish of the legislator.”

- Anti-extension positions

MP Mikhael Daher: “I am against any term extension because Parliament has been dormant for nine months. One cannot encourage inactivity. MPs could have made their sessions public and brought the executive branch to account by pushing toward its resignation after all that happened since the eruption of the crisis. But its apathy makes it partly responsible and unworthy of having its term extended. “

MP Nadim Gemayyel: “It all boils down to the government. If it cannot hold the parliamentary elections, then it should refer an extension proposal to Parliament. But I will not approve any such proposal if presented by a deputy because this falls within the power of the executive branch.”

Approved Law

Finally, and after the Cabinet had proposed an extension by only one year, Law No. 1/76 was approved prolonging Parliament’s lifespan by two years and 28 days until June 30, 1978. There remains though a main difference between the term extensions of 1976 and that of 2013: the former occurred upon a draft law proposed by the Cabinet while the latter was a decision made by parliamentarians themselves.