The National Bloc party criticized the escalation of sectarian trend of the current political system, and its attempts to absolve itself from the crimes of the past 30 years. This trend summarizes this political system’s past, present, and future; as was evident in the Beirut Archdiocese meeting, and in the two press conferences by the Marada Movement leader Sleiman Frangieh and by the Loyalty to Resistance bloc member, MP Hassan Fadlallah.

In a statement, the party pointed to the meeting hosted by Greek Orthodox Archbishop Elias Audi, about refusing the appointment of a new governor for the city of Beirut without the blessing of religious authorities. This meeting seemed to bridge the differences between political foes such as the “Lebanese Forces” and the “Syrian National Social Party”, and demonstrated that all of those present saw their main identity as a religious and sectarian one, and that the future of Lebanon was dependent on prioritizing sectarian rights, rather than concentrating on other points of contention.

The party also commented on the press conference held by MP Sleiman Frangieh, who prioritized the rights of sects in his usual frank manner.  He clarified by stating that the rights of Christians are the same as the rights and interests of their leaders, then he addressed Free Patriotic Movement president Gibran Bassil, his ally in the government but foe in the sect.

Another press conference by MP Hassan Fadlallah was also mentioned in the party’s statement, saying that he spoke to the Lebanese for over an hour and half, citing references and documents that show that the “sectarian parties” have looted the public funds over the past 30 years, and have politicized the judiciary in order to avoid persecution. Representative Fadlallah, in an attempt to cover up not having taking any measures to combat corruption, says that this not the role of political parties, but it is the duty of the judiciary.  This is a correct statement, yet, he does not mention that those same political parties closed parliament, and prevented the election of a President for many years, using the constitution and protecting national reconciliation as an excuse.  The question here is: doesn’t respecting the constitution entail safeguarding public funds, having an independent judiciary, and resistance of the internal occupation of corruption?

The party stressed that this political system is responsible for bringing Lebanon to the state it is in today, and it continues with the same approach despite all the scandals, the bankruptcy, and the loss of popular trust.

In conclusion of its statement, the party called on this political system to leave the governance of the country to an independent sovereign government wit legislative powers that can save what can be saved, and that can try to regain the trust of the Lebanese people in the upcoming parliamentary elections.