If the constitution does not specify the form of the electoral district within the regions, there is a constitutional interpretation suggesting that the election law should rely on a single standard when dividing electoral districts, applied equally across all Lebanese regions.

Thus, there are constitutional approaches indicating that the sixteenth district may violate the constitution if electoral regions are divided based on governorates, since the "continents" cannot be considered electoral regions and are certainly not Lebanese governorates. Does this make the sixteenth district a violation of the provisions of the Lebanese constitution?

Constitutional expert Dr. Jihad Ismail begins with the constitution, explaining that "Article 24 of the Lebanese constitution imposes a restriction on the allocation of parliamentary seats, which is proportionality among regions. However, it does not specify the form of the electoral district within the regions. This requires referring to constitutional interpretation, specifically Constitutional Council Decision No. 4/1996, which stated that the rules set out in Article 24 lose their meaning and real content if the election law, when dividing electoral districts, does not adopt a single standard applied equally in all Lebanese regions. This means that the governorate should be the electoral district in all regions, or the district should be the electoral district in all governorates, or any other uniform division of electoral districts."

He adds: "The condition is that this division, according to the legislator, fulfills the provisions of Article 24, and that a single standard is applied in dividing these districts so as to ensure equality before the law for voters in exercising their constitutional electoral rights, and for candidates regarding the burdens imposed on them."

Equality in division

What does this mean? Can we base on this constitutional interpretation the claim that the sixteenth district violates the constitution because it does not follow the “single standard” applied to other electoral districts?

Ismail responds: “The constitutional interpretation means that, according to this decision, the Parliament has discretionary authority in determining the shape of the districts, but two conditions must be observed: first, equality in the division of districts; and second, proportionality among regions under Article 24 of the constitution. The division of all electoral districts, including the sixteenth district, lacks uniform standards, as some districts were subdivided differently from others, violating the constraints set by both the Constitutional Council’s interpretation and Article 24 of the constitution.”

He notes that “the sixteenth district joins those districts that violate legal standards and also contravene the principle of proportionality, and consequently the constitutional meaning of the term ‘regions’ in Article 24 of the constitution.” However, he adds, “Despite these issues, the contested law has become effective and is, in fact, beyond challenge, based on Constitutional Council Decision No. 16/2000, which states that the Council does not have jurisdiction to examine the constitutionality of the election law when reviewing the validity of elections.”

Regarding constitutional readings, “all provisions of the election law are immediately applicable except for those dependent on the issuance of implementing texts, including Chapter 11.” Ismail comments: “This chapter refers to the sixteenth district and links its creation to the intervention of regulatory authorities, including the Ministries of Interior and Foreign Affairs, through the establishment of a joint committee to draft implementing texts for expatriate voting, or alternatively, through the adoption of implementing decrees within the Council of Ministers to apply this chapter of the law.”

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar