Suddenly, the formation of the Lebanese government was set in motion again, giving rise to cautious optimism about the return of constitutional life to this small country.

One would naturally ask about the reasons behind this recent motion: Have regional power balances changed and been positively reflected on the Lebanese parties, shaking them awake and leading them to show keenness in avoiding institutional vacuum, ending stagnation and governing the affairs of the country and its citizens? Or are there imminent milestones on the international and regional levels rendering the shielding behind the Lebanese state, its legitimate institutions, and national partnership — dubbed mithaqiya — a need? Mithaqiya refers to the concept that the Lebanese state was built upon, a national pact — or mithaq — between various sectarian groups to form the Lebanese nation. It is a concept evoked when one party’s interests are not met, and it has become synonymous with obstructing —  or even turning against — the state.

The formation process was faced by the stiffness of the two political camps concerned with forming a government comprising all parties. The March 14 camp insisted on forming a neutral government, in the event that Hezbollah did not withdraw from the war in Syria and end its support for the regime. For its part, Hezbollah insisted on a “blocking third” in the cabinet, granting the party the ability to veto any governmental decision. It also insisted on the ministerial statement (policy) including the concept of “people-army-resistance”, which legitimizes the role of the resistance, i.e., Hezbollah’s arms, and wards off any talk about its disarmament.

This subject has proved to be an insurmountable obstacle since the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon in 2005. Many cabinet-formation proposals were set forth, including Hezbollah’s 9-9-6 formula, ensuring both camps have a blocking third, and the 8-8-8- formula, giving equal number of ministries to both parties as well as moderates. However, there were disputes about who are the real moderates, and inventions like a king-minister or a deposit-minister, in addition to definitions and names given to the government that has yet to be formed, such as a “de-facto government” or a “preventive government.”