Have you ever heard of the inverted democracy theory? In principle, this is difficult, because it is a rare theory that exists in practice and reality.
The theory mentioned is based on the House of Representatives, and the regional balance of power between the majority and the minority. Sometimes a minority can rule and control the decision in the House of Representatives because of its unification, while the majority remains on the sidelines because of its scattering.
Which is unfortunately what began to appear at the level of the performance of the new parliament. The majority, consisting of sovereigns, independents, and changers, has not yet been able to gather its components to take a clear position and one of two important entitlements tomorrow: the presidency of the House of Representatives and the vice presidency.
In the first battle, the pillars of the majority did not agree on whether they would vote on a white paper against President Nabih Berri, or whether they would put another name on their papers. As for the battle for the presidency, the majority members are still far from agreeing on a single name to fight with, and with it, the battle against the elected representative, Elias Bou Saab.
Is it reasonable? Is it permissible for the majority to move from one place to another while the decision remains in place without any modification or alteration? As a result, did the people elected so that the old one would remain on its feet and that the state of Hezbollah would remain stronger than the state?