Abstract
AbstractThis article examines the serious shortcomings of the procedure of dissolution of the Lebanese Parliament under the First Republic and its paralysis during the Second Republic due to the influence of confessional mechanisms. A close examination of the Lebanese legal system makes it possible to distinguish two sets of disparate constitutional norms. On the one hand, there is the enshrinement of traditional constitutional principles under the purview of parliamentarianism. On the other hand, there is the adoption of a confessional regime of representation and power‐sharing. The two sets of divergent legal norms coexist and co‐function at the intersection of secular democratic principles and the multi‐confessional composition of the Lebanese society. Notable in this regard is the power of dissolution of the Parliament which was amended in 1990 to be consistent with the Lebanese confessional formula in a way that renders it entirely ineffective.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
