Political clash: A dispute over one speech reveals a deeper power...

4^min

Report by Petra Abou Haidar, English adaptation by Yasmine Jaroudi

Prime Minister Nawaf Salam's reaction to a question in Parliament has highlighted the extent of the differences between his government and Lebanon’s military establishment, a rift that has surfaced repeatedly in recent months and resurfaced during a parliamentary session through Defense Minister Michel Mnassa.

Salam prevented Mnassa from delivering a speech outlining the army's position on a proposed general amnesty law. Salam cited Article 64 of Lebanon's Constitution, which states that the prime minister represents the government and speaks on its behalf.

However, a competing constitutional interpretation holds that the Speaker of Parliament controls parliamentary sessions and grants lawmakers and ministers the right to speak. Under that interpretation, a minister may speak with the Speaker’s permission and cannot be prevented from addressing Parliament by the prime minister.

The competing interpretations have once again underscored the long-standing disputes in Lebanon over constitutional powers and their interpretation.

According to LBCI sources, the disagreement goes beyond constitutional questions. Salam had reportedly reviewed Mnassa's planned speech and objected to its content, believing it could unintentionally put the defense minister and the military establishment at odds with part of Lebanese society.

That suggests the dispute was political rather than purely constitutional.

Meanwhile, sources at the Grand Serail and the prime minister’s office stressed that no one has the right to question the government’s support for the army. They said Salam is among the military’s strongest supporters and is committed to extending the state’s authority across all Lebanese territory.

Parliamentary sources close to Salam described the dispute as “principled,” centering on a fundamental question: Is the army an independent authority, or is it an institution responsible for implementing decisions taken by the political authorities?

According to those sources, the military is not a separate authority and must implement the decisions of the political leadership.

The disagreement between Salam and the military establishment is not new. It emerged during an incident in Beirut's Raoucheh area, when the iconic rock formation was illuminated with images of Hezbollah leaders Hassan Nasrallah and Hashem Safieddine on the anniversary of their killings, despite a government decision banning the display. Salam had expected the security agencies to enforce the decision.

The rift became more pronounced during a well-known parliamentary session on March 2, when lawmakers moved to classify armed groups as outside the law. A dispute reportedly erupted between Salam and Army Commander General Rodolph Haykal after the army chief suggested finding a way to communicate with Hezbollah.

Salam responded at the time that “there is no security through consensus.”

Therefore, the latest confrontation reflects a broader disagreement over how Lebanon should be governed and the relationship between the political authorities and the military, amid shifting balances of power from South Lebanon to the wider region.