Sara el-Yafi states in her article that the universal suffrage to elect the head of the state would empower its people, and she makes up a poll, a mock election ballot. Yes, politicians must work for the people, first of them the president.
Yes the Parliament power must be diluted, diminished.
But I have one problem with your article, she condemns confessionalism and she says :”No religions, no geographically restricted voices, just equal voices for all in one country.”
She presents to us a list of presidential candidates, and says in her article that the direct voting will lead the Lebanese to a less confessional state. Yet the list is based on confessions. All the candidates are of one confession. I know, she put up that list because it is a tradition, the candidates are based on the unwritten National pact of 1943, the National Pact is highly sectarian. And I personally will never vote, even if I could, to elect a candidate limited to his confession.
Let’s say we the people could vote for a president. A president with no religion presented to us, I am not saying atheist, (of course everyone has the right to) just a president that conceals his religion, (or his atheism) for the purpose of not influencing the people’s vote. And if he does that, now this is going to be interesting.
I completely understood what she wrote in the article, and respect her ideas.
But the real problems, the essence of them in the Lebanese state, is not the direct or indirect voting, but the rules that accompany it, the National Pact, the Taef Agreement that put so much limits to the needs of, I am sure, the majority of the Lebanese citizens. A full working national assembly that will look up to the real problems of the country, such as Energy, Equal Rights, ban of Corruption, Environmental issues and what we lack the most, Economical Security. Maybe an impartial assembly ?
Either way, keep on the suggestions and good article.