Decentralization dilemma: Gebran Bassil's statements stir political waters in Lebanon

The French Presidential Envoy departs Lebanon, leaving the field to internal players until September, who must agree on a roadmap before his return.

The leader of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), Gebran Bassil, stirred political waters with his statements on Thursday, which has sparked debate and opened doors for interpretations, raising questions about potential trade-offs.

Bassil outlined the negotiating scope for achieving the presidential elections in his statements.

However, what is the stance of the Amal-Hezbollah duo towards his proposition?

Insiders familiar with Hezbollah's stance claim that what Bassil publicly expressed was previously discussed in meetings with Hezbollah. Still, no concrete response was given.

It is worth noting that the head of the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc had emphasized Hezbollah's commitment to its stance on the presidential elections.

As for the Amal Movement, its sources affirmed to LBCI that the issue of administrative decentralization is primarily discussed in the Parliament. They argued that the FPM rejects opening the debate on decentralization and its adoption.

According to these sources, Bassil's recent remarks indicate a political retreat, hinting he might be open to accepting Sleiman Frangieh as a presidential candidate.

If Bassil proposes decentralization as part of a presidential trade-off, the Lebanese Forces firmly reject the idea.

LF sources view decentralization as a stipulation within the Taif Agreement and insist that it must be adopted alongside the election of a new president, as it has become an urgent necessity. For them, decentralization should not be subject to any bargaining.

However, the Lebanese Forces and the Democratic Gathering's stances are almost alike, whose sources reject any trade-off that could take place in this context.

The Kataeb Party also supported implementing decentralization and electing a president. They emphasize their opposition to any trade-offs, blaming such practices for the country's current state. Any potential deal would not concern them.

On the other hand, Change MPs believe decentralization is already stipulated in the Taif Agreement and does not require new legislation. Their sources reported to LBCI that they assert that their demand for decentralization remains consistent daily.

Nevertheless, they question whether this implies they will endorse Frangieh's candidacy.

Given these dynamics, will decentralization become a topic of indirect negotiations between Lebanese factions until Jean-Yves Le Drian's return to Beirut in September, laying the groundwork for its official consideration in the presidential phase?