MideastWeb Middle East Web Log
Lebanon's latest crisis may be the terminal illness of Lebanese democracy. A Hezbollah led, Syrian-supported demonstration has paralyzed the government for six days. Lebanese loyal to the government, as well as Western and Arab nations, seem to be paralysed like deer in the headlamps of an oncoming vehicle. Everyone deplores the crisis and offers calm, but nobody is doing anything to resolve it or to help the Seniora government face down the Hezbollah.
Commentary on the crisis has focused mostly on the need to avoid violence and civil war. The stakes and the background and the issues are evaded rather studiously.
Lebanon has not apparently completely coalesced into a nation. It is a coalition of sects and clans. It's constitution is based on sectarian apportionment of representation, giving Maronite Christians disproportionate power, according to their share of the population in the 1940s. Since then, the Shi'a "minority" has grown steadily. Since no census has been taken in a long time, nobody knows how many Shi'a there really are in Lebanon, but it is probable that their claim to be a majority is based on reality.
Lebanese governments have largely ignored the Shi'a south and the Beq'a valley, which remain extremely poor. The poverty is exacerbated by the high birthrates, which are what brought about the Shi'a demographic revolution. Hezbollah took advantage of this situation, offering the Shi'a both political champions and social programs to offset the government neglect. The concern of the West to promote democracy in Lebanon did not, unfortunately, extend to offering massive economic and social programs to provide an alternative to the Hezbollah.
The sectarian constitution was to have been dissolved under the Taif accords, but it never happened. If the sectarian constitution is dissolved, there is a danger of total domination by the Shi'ites. On the other hand, the current sectarian constitution cannot continue as it is because it is manifestly unfair, and a source of bitter discontent. The problem is how to make Lebanon a representative democracy without empowering the Hezbollah and the allies of Syria.
The long tribulations of Lebanon and the complexities of the political alliances are often thought to be uniquely Lebanese features. In fact, they are remarkably reminiscent of the Thirty Years War that took place in Germany in the 17th century. Like modern Lebanon, Germany was weak and divided. What began as a quarrel over succession and a religious war, ended as a power struggle between several foreign powers, who used Germany as a battle ground to settle the future of Europe and to get some tasty bits of German land for themselves. Typical of this war, the peace conference that ended the war sat for eleven months before it was discovered that nobody knew what issues needed to be settled.
In Lebanon, the issues are often similarly complex and obscure, and are cleverly hidden.
Opposition to Syrian and Hezbollah policies is hazardous to the health of prominent Lebanese. Political leader Pierre Gemayel and newspaper editor Gebran Tueni are among the many casualties of these Lebanese disease.
The current act of the Lebanese tragedy began when the government of Fuad Seniora approved a plan for an international tribunal to bring the murderers of Rafiq Hariri to justice. Manifestly, the murderers of Hariri would not think that is a good plan. Hezbollah ministers tried to block the decision. When they failed, they walked out of the government, and Hezbollah, with Syrian help, initiated this demonstration. It is no secret that there are Syrians among the demonstrators. The demonstration does not even pretend to be "spontaneous." Hezbollah first Secretary Nasrallah announced he would bring down the government with a demonstration, and then he went ahead with his plan. The demonstrators say they are for a democratic government and against "foreign meddling." They are motivated by the old ills of unrepresentative government and poverty.
We have been in this movie a few times before. The crowds who supported the 1917 Soviet revolution wanted "Bread, Land, Peace." They wanted an end to the incompetent Kerensky government, they wanted democracy and an end to the war. What they got was forced collectivization, purges and gulags, because that was the program of the Bolshevik party. The crowds who supported the 1979 revolution of Khomeini in Iran for the most part wanted democracy and an end to the terror rule of the Shah. Instead, they got a new set of secret police, and a government that murdered more and different dissidents and pursues a dangerous foreign policy. The Lebanese demonstrators did not learn from the lesson of Iran. In ten years they may be very surprised and very sorry to see the result of their efforts.
Reality denial is rife in Lebanon. Egregious exponents of this school are the editors of the Daily Star who wrote:
Somehow it all becomes the fault of European colonial powers. The "foreign countries" not mentioned are Syria and Iran. Of course if it were not for the evil European colonial powers (specifically France and Britain) there would not be any Lebanon at all. It wold have been swallowed up in Greater Syria. And of course, the evasive prose masks the fact, the demonstration aims to bring down a democratically elected government, prevent the administration of justice, and perpetuate the reign of terror enforced by assassinations.
Surrender to Islam or acquiesce in an Islamic republic and you can live in peace, that is the offer of Hezbollah to the rest of the Lebanese.
One commentary summary reassures us that, according to Eyal Zisser writing in Yediot Ahronot:
Oh, then that is OK. Nasrallah doesn't want violence. He just wants to stage a coup without violence. Of course, if you can take power without violence it is better than having to fight, no? The title of the commentary is less reassuring and it tells the real story: Lebanon: Civil War or Nasrallah's Peace?. The Lebanese will chose Nasrallah's "peace" apparently, and the rest of the world, by its inaction, will help them chose. The Hezbollah are always willing, of course, to declare, "Give us an Islamist government or give us death." Nobody in Lebanon is willing to say "Give me liberty or give me death."
The poor Lebanese, like rabbits in fattening cage, will find that those who try to trade liberty for safety get neither liberty nor safety.
Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000540.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to email@example.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission.
Replies: 2 comments
It is inevitible that a government who allows an agressive and openly violent faction to share their power will be absorbed by the agressive faction. Siniora's government is bound by the international community, if he wants to maintain a good diplomatic relationship, to play by the common civil rules. Hezbollah, on the other hand does not wish to have relations with the west and thus have nothing tieing their hands from preforming a coup. Hezbollah has been, and continue to test the waters, to see if the west or anyone else will aid Siniora. As soon as they have come to the conclusion that his government has no allies upon which they can depend, Hezbollah will cease control. Israel would do well to aid Siniora by providing his government protection. This would obviously be seen as a betrayal to the Lebanese people by Siniora, but if Israel played their cards right through diplomacy campains they may retain enough lebanese support to advert the coup. Of course, bombing Lebanon will not serve to achieve public support. Israel can either help the lesser of two evils or be confronted with a much more powerfull and deadly Palestinianesc situation for the unseen future.
Posted by OMFG @ 12/08/2006 07:13 PM CST
"The problem is how to make Lebanon a representative democracy without empowering the Hezbollah and the allies of Syria."
Acknowledging that Lebanon is not a representative democracy but a gerrymandered confessional stitch-up organised to disenfranchise the probable Shi'ite majority is a good start. I also agree that empowering Hezbollah is extremely undesirable. However, if the majority of Lebanese support Hezbollah or its allies, it's hard to see how a consistent democrat can fault Nasrallah's current tactics.
Hezbollah did not invent these sort of massive street protests aimed at dislodging a government of questionable legitimacy. The Eastern Europeans did, and they were lauded for it by commentators from across the western political spectrum. But suddenly the tactic is recast as illegitimate.
Finally it seems to me that the foreign power which has done most to assist the rise of Hezbollah is not Syria but Israel. Without the 1982 invasion, occupation and recent fiasco would we have this problem? Oddly absent from the analysis above.
Posted by Spike @ 12/12/2006 02:49 PM CST
Please do not leave notes for MidEastWeb editors here. Hyperlinks are not displayed. We may delete or abridge comments that are longer than 250 words, or consist entirely of material copied from other sources, and we shall delete comments with obscene or racist content or commercial advertisements. Comments should adhere to Mideastweb Guidelines . IPs of offenders will be banned.
Editors' contributions are copyright by the authors and MidEastWeb for Coexistence RA.
Please link to main article pages and tell your friends about MidEastWeb. Do not copy MidEastWeb materials to your Web Site. That is a violation of our copyright. Click for copyright policy.
MidEastWeb and the editors are not responsible for content of visitors' comments.
Please report any comments that are offensive or racist.
Editors can log in by clicking here