Home >> Middle East >> Syria & Lebanon

     Email   Print 

Lebanese versus Lebanon: Something new, something old, something tricky

Manuela Paraipan - 1/23/2006

Last year parliamentary elections were significant for Lebanon. After decades of Syrian occupation, the Lebanese were finally able to see the light at the end of the tunnel. The goal was to build a genuinely democratic Lebanon, free of Syrian control. At that time many Lebanese from outside and inside Lebanon were highly optimistic about the immediate future of Lebanon. But, soon they were to find out that democracy is more than voting and that the regular tribal rivalries, and back doors broken deals to serve the selfish interest of this or that party were back in place. The fact that Lebanon has a confessional political system, with the Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Druze, Christians, and others seeking a leading role in the new political environment, did not simplify the situation.

The Syrian withdrawal and the parliamentary elections had substantially changed the Lebanese political change. The downside was that the main political players did not change; the laws of the elections were of Syrian origin, thus discriminatory and not truthful to today’s reality. Also, in its long time domination of Lebanon, Damascus has managed to put people loyal to its agenda in all layers of the Lebanese society. The presence of such individuals in the political arena had further complicated an already complex situation.

If the Parliament and the Government changed, the President of the Republic did not. President Lahoud came to power on November 1998, after Damascus’s refusal to extent for a second time President Hrawi’s mandate.

In 2004, Syria had pressured the Lebanese Parliament to amend the constitution in order to allow President Lahoud to remain in power for three more years, after the legitimate ending of his mandate.

By having Emile Lahoud, a pro-Syrian politician President of a democratic Lebanon that finally managed to escape the Syrian tutelage, is the least a frustrating and dissatisfactory circumstance. Although, a witness of the historic changes of the Lebanese political arena, President Lahoud stubbornly refuses to step down. Not long ago, the Presidency spokesman Rafik Shalala told the Associated Press, that in spite of the internal and external pressure to resign, President Lahoud would carry on his responsibilities “until the end of his mandate in 2007.”

But, even so, there are quite a few names of valuable politicians who have already expressed their intentions to candidate for the higher post in the State.

General Michel Aoun, opposed from day one the Syrian presence and interference in Lebanon. He has served briefly as Prime Minister and President, before fleeing in exile, in France. He returned to Lebanon, after the Syrian withdrawal and continues to be a critic of Damascus failed policy towards Lebanon, and an advocate of democracy. He enjoys a broad support among the Christians, and generally speaking among those who favor a free, independent, democratic and secular government.

Nassib Lahoud, a distant relative of the President Emile Lahoud, and a former Ambassador to United States is an appreciated politician by some of the Christian sect, and also by individuals of other sects. His supporters praise him for being a moderate, someone who has sufficient diplomatic and political experience to become a leader of Lebanon.

Nayla Moawad, is wife of the former slain President, Rene Moawad. She entered the political arena, as a Member of Parliament in 1990. Since then, she has won several mandates and now is Minister for Social Affairs. During the years she has proved to be an enthusiastic promoter of women and children’s rights. I have met her for an interview last year, and she has struck me as a distinguished, very well educated, knowledgeable and ambitious lady. While it is rarely to have a woman elected as President, it is not something totally unrealistic.

Chibli Mallat, a prominent Lebanese lawyer, announced his intention to run in the next Presidential elections, last year at a press conference at the

UN Correspondents Association. Mallat said: "Mr. Lahoud has lost all credibility and now that he is under investigation, it is worse. We cannot find a single voice in favor of Mr. Lahoud in Beirut today.” He added: “Let us all compete regionally, internationally, on ideas, on achievement, on standing and then the deputies choose. What I would ask is for democratic governments to support the process, and to support the quick exit of Mr. Lahoud.”

Of great interest for the future of Lebanon is (or at least so it should be) the wave of young politicians, and the many young freedom advocates.

Metn MP Pierre Gemayel is son of the former President Amin Gemayel and grandson of late Sheikh Pierre Gemayel, the founder of the Kataeb party and a prominent, respected politician. Pierre Gemayel, is said to be a high caliber diplomat, and a skilled, ambitious politician who is following the footsteps of his father.

Samy Gemayel is the younger son of President Amin Gemayel, and although not a politician he is an intellectual advocating for a free, independent Lebanon. Samy Gemayel seems to be in search of a new political formula to address the current needs of Lebanon, and in this respect the force of his message is proving successful in drawing national and international attention. The Secretary General of the American Lebanese Coordination Council (ALCC), Pierre Maroun described Gemayel as “a nationalist with a greater cause, and a fighter with a noble mission to accomplish”, and I second his opinion. I have had the honor and the pleasure to meet and discuss with Samy Gemayel at a time when Lebanon was passing through its incipient “orange” phase of democratization. He spoke with great fervor about his vision of a prosperous free Lebanon. I did not expect such a high level of commitment towards Lebanon from a young man, in his early 20s. My error. With his charisma, bravery and sharpness I expect to hear more often of him, and of his activities within the group, “Loubnanouna” or “Our Lebanon.” (Www.loubnanouna.org)

Another notable presence is that of MP Wael Abou Faour, member of Walid Jumblatt’s Progressive Socialist Party (PSP). He is an ambitious individual, who started as a student activist, and then became the PSP youth coordinator, to later move to a position within the party’s political bureau. One may not agree with his political credo, but that do not shadow his career accomplishments.

Saad Hariri entered politics under tragic circumstances, after the assassination of his father, the former Premier Rafik Al Hariri. Shortly after assuming the leadership position of the Future movement, he told the AFP agency, "I think I am merely a symbol for now. I need to work hard in the coming four years to ... fill a little bit my father's shoes."

Although inexperienced in politics, he is a tenacious businessman holding a graduate degree from Georgetown University in Washington. He successfully headed Oger, the Saudi based firm of his father, one of the largest and most prosperous Middle Eastern business organizations.

Recently he proposed the creation of a youth government, a sort of a watchdog entity that would have the opportunity of closely following the Lebanese government’s actions. Hopefully this entity would also have the means of reacting to it. The idea belonged to the assassinated MP Gebran Tueni, who was a well-known journalist and a constant critic of Syria’s maneuverings in Lebanon. Saad Hariri promised to further support the idea, in order to allow youths to actively participate at a decision making level.

The Shiit parties, Amal and Hezbollah also have young, resourceful and competent members, but they are not as visible as it should be, taking in consideration that the old guard had enough time to prove its capabilities, and now it is the time to let others step into the middle of the action.

Talking about the old guard, three (among others) of its main representatives are still very much in power, namely Walid Jumblatt, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, and Nabih Berri.

Walid Jumblatt, is the famous and controversial Druze leader of the Progressive Socialist Party. Once a warlord and a Syrian ally, Walid Jumblatt is now publicly calling for a regime change in Syria. His opponents nicknamed him, “the chameleon” because of his unexpected, often-sudden changes of political alliances and political discourse. What one can say about him, without fearing to be wrong is that Walid Jumblatt is certainly an unconventional politician.

Nabih Berri, is Speaker of the Parliament since 1992, former warlord, leader of the Shiit Amal Party and an influent politician inside and most probably, outside Lebanon as well. He is as astute individual with an impressive political career, in the sense that his actions deeply affected the lives of its fellow citizens and that he survived in his high-ranking position for a long time. He largely contributed, for the better or worse to today’s image of Lebanon. He is a supporter of Syria, and his critics say that he benefited a lot from this partnership. In the last eight months, he moderated his supportive rhetoric towards Bashar al Assad regime. For the time being he will continue playing the moderate game, without taking a publicly visible position against Syria, but nonetheless he appears to be willing to engage in a constructive dialogue with all the Lebanese political parties.

Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah is the leader of Hezbollah (the Party of God), and of its militia. Under his command, Hezbollah succeeded to drive Israel put of Lebanon. This act has made Hezbollah popular, respected and even feared. A big minus of its leadership is the fact that by driven the Israeli army out, Sheikh Nasrallah did not offer his victory to the Lebanese people (as it was normal), but to his own militia. To this day, Hezbollah is completely controlling the South of Lebanon. Everything related to Hezbollah’s militia is pretty much peculiar, and the prisoner exchange between Israel and Hezbollah (attention: not Israel and Lebanon, as it would have been normal – a state deals with another state) brokered by Germany, in 2004 is not making any difference. Hezbollah has refused to disarm, as the UN resolution 1559 and a large part of the Lebanese asks them to.

By taking Syria’s side, when everyone else in Lebanon is not, Hezbollah succeeded to partially isolate itself. In March 2005 when thousands gathered to protect against Damascus interference in Lebanon, Hezbollah found appropriate to distance itself from the rest of the Lebanese. Later on, it organized its own gathering, in support of Syria. To the very least their repeated positions against Lebanon is questionable.

Hezbollah also continues to attack Israel, whenever it sees as fit, without asking for a national consensus. Actually, the Israeli leadership warned Hezbollah that its provocative borders activities put at risk the entire Lebanon. The international or national laws, for that matter are not made for Hezbollah to respect. By analyzing its activities, the conclusion is that its either that Hezbollah is right (and everyone else is wrong) and the United States, and Israel are conspiring together to invade and rule Lebanon, or Hezbollah is inventing these type of pretexts only to hold on to their weapons and power, for a goal, yet undisclosed to the majority of us, the profanes. While many disagree with Sheikh Nasrallah’s agenda, his continuous social support of the deprived Shiia community deserves recognition and respect. However, he has done little to politically enforce and modernize its own party. Professor Habib Malek, said the following about Hezbollah’s ideology: “I think they may have realized that without this business [resistance], their ideology is completely bankrupt. It offers no answer to the challenges of modernity, in order to attract the youth in a free, pluralistic society. What really scares them is not the US or Israel but having to operate in an environment where their youth will have all the other options.”

The chain of assassinations overclouded the process of reshaping Lebanon’s democracy. Many suspect that the killings have been commanded by Syria, in the fashion of any dictatorship entity that sees itself above all, and acts accordingly. The Reform Party of Syria (RPS) has signaled repeatedly that although obligated to implement the UN Security Council resolutions 1546, 1559, 1595, 1636, and 1644, Damascus regime declined to do so.

The ex-Vice President of Syria, Abdul Halim Kaddam appeared on Al-Arabiya TV on December 30, 2005 and condemned the regime of President Assad for the tragedies that happened in Lebanon in the last year. Specifically, Kaddam said that Assad has indeed threatened Rafik Hariri, thus implying that Bashar Assad may know more than he is willing to recognize about this case. It was the first time when a Syrian high-ranking official publicly revealed such valuable information’s in support of Detlev Mehlis preliminary reports conclusions. In this context, Kaddam become a key witness in the UN investigation, and the highest-ranking Baathist official to have turned against the regime.

The United States and France are closely monitoring Damascus regime. There is much pressure put on President Assad to cooperate with the international community, but not too many encouraging signs from Damascus. Some are saying that Syria needs a regime change, preferably through a home breed revolution; others believe that it is enough to impose strong sanctions on Syria, and the third group is advocating the toppling of the Baath Syrian system, in the fashion of Iraq.

Taking in consideration that Iraq is a young, yet unstable democracy, and the dangerous moves of the Iranian mullahs, it is unlikely (though, not impossible) to see the United States opening another front with Syria. Everyone would like to see a smooth transition from dictatorship to liberal, western style democracy, or to some sort of Arab style democracy.

The Lebanese parties, Christian or Muslim should rise above the usual tribal interests or hidden agendas, and strongly condemn the Syrian long-time aggressiveness towards it, and moreover ask Syria to pay for its wrongdoings. While the United States, France and UN can assist the Lebanese in doing so, the international community cannot do the work of the Lebanese. Bilal Sharara, the Secretary General of the Foreign Affairs Parliamentary Commission said that, “We, do not need a "made in U.S." or a "made in France" solution; we need a Lebanese solution to our problems.” And, he was right. All we can do now is wait and hope that the Lebanese will take advantage of the rather rare and invaluable opportunity of any Middle Eastern people, that of deciding itself it’s present and future.