One of the scenarios that could occur in the presidential elections is the election of former minister Jihad Azour without any Shiite votes, for example, or the election of Sleiman Frangieh without any Druze votes, for instance.
Would we really have a president described as non-confessionalism?
What would be the consequences of that?
The Constitution does not mention any sectarian distribution of the deputies who elect the president.
Furthermore, the voting process is secret, so when counting the votes, it is impossible to determine the voter's identity or sect for a particular candidate.
The winner becomes the president by virtue of the Constitution.
However, objectors can oppose him and refuse to cooperate with him or challenge the result and request the annulment of the elections.
They can submit a request for objection supported by one-third of the members of the Parliament to the Constitutional Council within 24 hours after the announcement of the results.
A majority of seven votes must make the decision within three days from the appeal submission date.
Constitutional sources state that objections can be made based on violating the conditions imposed by Article 49 of the Constitution regarding the legality of the electoral process.
This includes the election date, the call for elections, vote counting, the integrity of the election, and the issues of quorum and majority.
However, according to these sources, if confessionalism is used to justify the objection, it may hold little chance before the Constitutional Council.