Thursday, June 16, 2005

Shaping lebanon's future

Shaping Lebanon’s Future
Christian Science Monitor Online edition

Ghassan Rubeiz, June 16, 2005

Lebanon has only partially recovered from the Syrian occupation and is on its way to establishing a democracy, albeit, a fragile one. According to a perversely complicated framework, specific Christian and Muslim communities share power of governance and representation.

This strange formula of power sharing (half the parliamentary seats for Christians and half for Muslims) is not likely to work forever, given the country’s changing population profiles. Muslims tend to have larger families, and Christians tend to emigrate during hard times. If Lebanon is to gain long term stability, power sharing must be secularized. A more realistic alternative, in the short term, would be to rotate leadership positions among the different communities. Currently, Muslims are not allowed to hold the position of presidency of the Republic or the head of the army; neither can a Christian become a Prime Minister. An additional reform would be to allow Lebanese emigrants to vote in Lebanese parliamentary elections. As a result of this orchestration of power sharing, some Lebanese have grown up as dislocated, Western-oriented citizens without authentic Arab roots; and in contrast, some over-identify with fanatic Arab causes.

The June parliamentary elections are not likely to bring significant reforms or ensure stability for long. The fist three rounds of the four-part elections have failed to produce important new leaders with practical ideas for building a modern and unified state. Politically, the same old wine is packaged in new electoral bottles. The third round, however, has re- introduced General Michel Aoun as a popular national leader, with a new language for reform? At best, the new government will offer reduced corruption, expanded economic enterprise, enhanced tourism for oil rich Arabs, and a continued relaxed environment for civic organizations. For better or worse, Lebanon has become a typical Arab regime, in which political wisdom is suppressed, reform is inhibited, triumphal rhetoric is encouraged, religious authority is supreme, and minorities are marginalized.

The impact of Middle East politics, Syrian, Palestinian and Iranian, on Lebanon is immense, and in a way crippling.

Syria’s current attempts at political and economic reforms may have a positive transfer value on Lebanon. But radical, political renewal in Syria is very difficult to achieve. Syria and Lebanon must reconfigure their relations to become good neighbors and equal partners. Experts on Syrian affairs call on the US to change its diplomatic approach to Syria. The current administration is too insensitive to Syria’s priorities and its diplomacy is void of reform-tied incentives. (Read “Inheriting Syria,” by Flynt Leverett, Brookings, 2005.)

Arab-Israeli tensions interfere with Lebanese domestic politics on a daily basis. The 250,000 Palestinian refugees living in camps have access to stored arms. The plight of the neglected Palestinian refugees in Lebanon is dire and that factor, adds instability to the country.

The role of Iran in Lebanon is complicated. Since Iran is the world’s leading Shiite community and Hezbollah is Lebanon’s major Shiite political organization, there is a clear common ground for partnership between these two contrasting political entities. Hezbollah is a militia, a political party and a welfare organization. Iran is an isolated and agitated state, and its ideology is reflected in Hezbollah’s political culture.

After the presidential elections in Iran later this month, the makeup of the new regime will determine how friendly it will be to the west and how sensitive it will be to Lebanon’s sovereignty. Subsequently, the Iranian leadership may help or hinder the politics of accommodation of Hezbollah. In principle, the less suspicious and more secure Hezbollah is, the more likely it is to lay down its arms and to excel politically. Hezbollah maybe be persuaded to lay its heavy weapons and to stop carrying light arms as a minimum and intermediary step. This compromise would also be a measure of respect for the new Lebanese government. However, current elections have further emboldened Hezbollah and made the issue of the near future.

By labeling Hezbollah as a “terrorist” organization, the US maybe complicating Lebanese domestic dialogue about the legitimacy of armed resistance against an external force. Regrettably, the Lebanese opposed to Hezbollah are seen as being submissive to US policies. Supporters of Hezbollah claim that since they are not working against the state, they are not a militia.

There seems to be no effective and lasting cure for Lebanon state building outside a comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli problem and the resolution of the US-European-Iranian crisis over the issue of nuclear enrichment.

The Lebanese deserve a modern, unified and secure country. Post election Lebanon will be different but not “new”.

Sunday, June 12, 2005

Lebanon elections: a step ahead

Lebanon’s Elections: A Step Ahead?

Ghassan Rubeiz, June 12, 2005 ( not published)

The Lebanese are at a political crossroads. The people are eager to reduce government corruption and to deal with sectarian political power sharing. They want to reduce excessive dependence on external powers; some point to Syria and Iran, others resent the influence of Israel, the US and France.
The Lebanese want to experience political justice and healing. They want to find out who killed Harriri (and other leaders) in order to stop the killing of future leaders who show promise and hope.
The Lebanese wish to be reconciled with their national identity and with one another. The people, especially the young, want to embrace their neighbors across an invisible community line, to unite nationally across religious boundaries, boundaries that politicians have for too long erected for their convenience.

There is an impressive grass-roots movement for change that has emerged in the wake of the death of Prime Minister Rafic Harriri. Christians and Muslims united through organized and peaceful demonstrations and succeeded in easing Syria out of their country in a relatively short time. The Lebanese discovered political power through organized advocacy and social action. Soon after this “Cedar Revolution”, public attention shifted to parliamentary elections.

National elections, held every four years, are structured to divide the communities along sectarian lines. In the three (out of four) weekly electoral rounds that started on May 29, 100 (of a total 128) parliament members have been chosen. The fourth and last round, on June 19, will conclude the formation of a new parliament with three powerful groupings. The three winning political blocks are full of promises but short on workable programs. They are Hezbollah, the Harriri Block, and the Aoun Block.

After this election, the Hezbollah block is the strongest political force. The Shiite community dominates this block of 35 Members of Parliament. Hezbollah (with leader Hasan Nasrallah) has economic recovery, distribution of wealth and military resistance among its priorities. Hezbollah’s reluctance to disband its militia may turn out to be the most divisive issue among the Lebanese. Some Lebanese feel that if Hezbollah disarms unconditionally, Israel will regain its hegemonic influence on Lebanon. Hezbollah’s increased popularity in the polls gives it some degree of local legitimacy. Eloquent supporters of this “resistance” movement argue that Hezbollah will feel secure enough to demilitarize only after the Arab/Israel crisis is solved. Intensive local and regional diplomacy is needed to convince Hezbollah to disarm voluntarily in order to enhance Lebanon’s image internationally and to allow the national army to regain its monopoly of use of force.

The Harriri block currently, made up of 44 MPs, is likely to gain more members in the fourth and last round of elections. Sa’ad Harriri inherited his political leadership after his father’s tragic assassination. This multi-confessional, Sunni-dominated cluster champions business, modernity, close cooperation with the international community, and bringing justice to the victims of political assassination. Harriri’s wealth greases its political machine. Its alliances are in some cases marriages of convenience. It is not surprising that the Harriri coalition seems to have lost interest in putting pressure on Hezbollah to disarm. In return, it expects electoral support from the Shiite community.

The Sunnites have Harriri, the Shiites have Nasrallah, and now the Christian have Aoun. General Aoun provides the Christian community a strong leader. The biggest surprise of the elections has been the sweeping victory of General Michel Aoun’s political slate. This civil-service reform coalition is likely to increase its 21 MPs in the June 19 election round. The youth are well represented in Aoun’s movement. Aoun’s blunt articulation of demands for policy change is not unlike the rhetorical claims of Democratic Party chairman, Howard Dean. After living 15 years in Paris, Aoun casts himself as the patron of modern Lebanon.

Aoun is unjustifiably accused of being pro-Syrian. Although he was the victim of Syria’s occupation to Lebanon, Aoun is less worried than before about Syria’s influence in Lebanese affairs. His primary campaign is focused on accountability of politics and transparency of governance. He is currently too weak outside the Christian community to confront the residual influence of Syria. Critics are more skeptical of his electoral alliances with some shady political figures than his flexibility towards Syria’s hegemony.

He promises to uncover the causes of evil: corruption of recent regimes that led the country to a national debt, estimated way over 100% of GNP, 35 billion dollars.
Aoun’s second priority is secular power sharing, a very tall order in a country where confessional politics has metastasized. He is, however, the only voice for promoting secularism as a means to national unity. At some point in the foreseeable future, the Christians, with Aoun’s leadership, may find their way to dialogue with other communities about separation of religion and state. This separation should occur in a Middle Eastern context that retains religion as a fundamental institution of society.

There is a wide gap between the popular demands for reform and the response of the politicians. The people have gone to great lengths in the recent rebellion to pass on three basic messages to the politicians. The first message calls for healing, telling the truth and reconciliation, especially among the leaders. The second message calls for national unity; reconciliation without unity is impossible. The third message calls for empowering the state by the withdrawal of foreign occupation and paramilitary forces.

What is new is the emerging power of the people, Hezbollah’s national and regional influence, and a strong Christian secular leader. What is constant is the sectarian political balance, a blessing for temporary stability but a curse for future innovation.

The final out come of the elections is leading to a divided government with conflicting forces and visions . The election process and outcome have not reflected careful listening from the politicians to the demands of the people. Still Lebanon is a step ahead because the people have tasted the power of solidarity. The new parliament, regardless of its configuration, will have to meet the challenge to reconciliate, to unite and to reform,