Lebanon needs security and freedom

Published in Daily Star on September 17, 2009

East Meredith, New York

In Lebanon the rulers are proud of existing freedoms and the reformers are obsessed with national security.

With no results yet, the Lebanese have been waiting all summer for a new cabinet of ministers to emerge. For the people its feels like going through a ten-month pregnancy.

Lebanon’s sectarian formula of power sharing offers a demographically shrinking Christian community the prestige of the country’s presidency. A Christian President designates a Muslim Prime Minister, a Sunnite. But the Prime Minister, as the chief of cabinet, has more power than the president. The current chief of parliament, a Shiite, has less formal power than the prime Minister or the President, but his alliance with a strong militia, (Hezbollah) gives him disproportional power.

In a way, the formal equilibrium in power sharing among the representatives of the four religious communities (Shiite, Sunnite, Christian and Druze) serves national stability, but this balance also seems to weaken national leadership, stifle efforts for reform and maintain sectarian tension. Too much energy is spent on political calibration of power.

Since the end of the civil war, Lebanon has faced a number of crises: a series of political assassinations, a devastating war with Israel in 2006, an 18 month strike that crippled the economy. And now, a young designated Prime Minister is having difficulties in forming a new post-election government without securing approval of regional and international powers, powers which have too much influence on domestic politics.

However, Lebanon remains unique in the region. Despite weak national security freedom thrives. There is suspense in Lebanese elections. Politicians win with narrow margins. Criticism of the government is a national sport. Capitalism thrives. Students organize lively political rallies. Thinkers publish controversial ideas. Unconventional art and theatre are appreciated. People dress fashionably; women can chose to wear daring western styles or affirm their identity through traditional dress. How long will these freedoms last?

The freedoms which Lebanon enjoys disappear during national upheavals. The civil war lasted 15 years, from 1975 to 1990. In this domestic war survival of the individual citizen trumped both freedom and national security.

All Lebanese want political reform. National debt has climbed to dangerous levels and is growing. Decent politicians take a back seat allowing opportunist leaders to run a country which lacks the discipline of law and order. A sectarian system of power sharing is bound to fail in the future because demography, the system’s underpinning, has already changed radically. Lebanon’s borders with neighboring countries are porous. Israeli air force violates Lebanese skies on a regular basis.

The situation ought to change, but reform occurs only when the reformer has a better system to replace the old one. The opposition is a unique alliance between Hezbollah – a political party with a strong militia- and the Free Patriotic Movement, FPM, lead by General Michel Aoun. Other minor parties play a secondary role in the opposition.

Observe the inconsistencies in the opposition camp. A “patriotic” party is in alliance with a militia-based party, which many view as threat to the sovereignty of the state. Moreover, a secular Christian “Movement”, FPM, is in alliance with a Shiite “Party of God”, “Hezbollah”. Furthermore, the Lebanese opposition calls for political reform with major backing from Iran and Syria, two countries where the priority of national security is used as a pretext to marginalize freedom. But the opposition remains popular because those who rule appear less credible than those who challenge the system.

This political marriage of convenience is less based on common ideology than on political benefits. A Shiite movement looks “national” in scope and less tribal as it partners with FPM, a secular Christian party. In return, FPM gains electoral weight as it joins a militarized party that represents the largest faith community in the country.

The March 14 bloc is also a pragmatic alliance which lacks consistent ideology, charismatic leadership and confidence. This alliance is also considered pro-Western internationally and pro-Saudi regionally.

Critics of the majority bloc passionately argue that the opposition is a solid partnership across the religious divide; such critics claim that this reform front is a genuine political mass movement to save Lebanon from a future sectarian civil war. Some observers believe that a Christian-Shiite populist alliance has the potential to evolve into a full national liberation movement to free Lebanon from external hegemony and to reform it internally.

Following the logic of the opposition requires an overdose of positive thinking. The popularity of Aoun may be an awakening that rejects the current sectarian power sharing formula, a formula which gives Christians only a temporary guarantee of power.

To some extent, Lebanon owes its flair for political freedom to well established Western educational and cultural institutions, particularly to the heritage of French and American schools and universities. The free political system of Lebanon is structurally geared to be friendly to the West.

But Lebanon’s connection with Iran and Syria through Hezbollah is growing. Regardless of its past contributions to Lebanon, its critics argue that Hezbollah’s militia today intimidates other parties and the state, gives excuse to other groups to organize secret armies, opens the Shiite community leadership to external influence and reinforces sectarianism. Hezbollah’s Shiite composition, its clerical leadership and its symbols appear sectarian.

Can Lebanon undergo reform without losing freedom? The chances are slim since the two major reform movements do not share the same vision of the future. Lebanon deserves a new political system which integrates freedom with security.

.

.