Listen to the article
We are used to criticizing politicians, the Lebanese Central Bank (BDL) at times, as well as Hezbollah and its offshoots—on this platform and elsewhere. We blame them for their misdeeds, their incompetence, their ignorance, their greed or all four at once. I admit that doing so is usually a breeze, given that politicians supply a steady stream of material. We then simply pick and choose from the array of foolishness and nuisances disseminated across the national landscape. It’s only fair, as everyone is simply doing their job.
What is troubling in this article is the need to address how the population’s shortcomings worsen an already disastrous situation. In this context, several social ills can be identified within a complex mix of willful ignorance, misplaced trust, blind conformity, intellectual laziness, knee-jerk reactions and contradictory conclusions. This mix is most apparent in the popular trend to offer strong opinions on complex issues—often on social media—even though these topics would typically require PhD-level studies.
Thus, everyone has their own opinion on the appropriate money supply, floating exchange rates, country risk according to Fitch’s RD rating, the FATF’s grey list, the implications of a default payment, the need for a “productive economy” to replace a freeloading one, the strategies banks should have adopted and more. And let’s not even get started on other issues, such as the ballistic capabilities of Hezbollah’s and Israel’s weaponry.
Since the economic crisis, Lebanon has seen a growing trend of flaunting superficial knowledge with undue pride. This display of pretended expertise has become all too common in recent times.
Take, for example, the case of the high-voltage power line cutting through semi-urban areas and its potential hazards. A few years ago, this electrical connection sparked protests from local residents and beyond, with everyone eventually forming their own theories on the acceptable level of low-frequency magnetic fields, measured in micro-Tesla. The debate even extended to the ecclesiastical sphere, where theological exegesis were dutifully drafted.
Another case in point: during the debate over the Bisri dam, everyone weighed in on how well the dam would withstand a magnitude 7 earthquake on the Richter scale, with the epicenter within a 10-kilometer radius.
We now face a more up-to-date controversy that highlights the concept of contradictory logic: Should the state’s assets be used to address losses and recover deposits, or should they be safeguarded?
The protesters, who five minutes ago labeled the state as a corrupt, rotting, looted entity—a sort of organized crime syndicate—are now rushing to defend it and consequently block any use of its assets, which they argue “belong to all Lebanese,” despite never having seen a cent of them and unlikely to do so anytime soon.
How can these inconsistencies in public behavior be explained? Given the aforementioned illnesses, one might consider the following process, among others:
A popular belief might initially take shape following a TV appearance by a so-called expert. Politicians, quick to seize on this emerging opinion, promote it to gain fleeting popularity they can’t achieve through any tangible achievements. This notion is then beefed up by journalists and social media. Consequently, what started as a shaky hypothesis from a television know-it-all is elevated to become an absolute and irrevocable truth.
This is how we’ve reached a deadlock over possible solutions to our financial crisis. We want to save and recover all deposits, oscillating between calling them “sacred” and “off-limits.” Then we insist that banks should bear the brunt of the losses, but despite all the so-called goodwill, it will never be enough—even if major shareholders step up and inject additional capital.
We start demanding the return of the funds that “fled” at the beginning of the crisis, even though it was perfectly legal at the time. So we’re left with the ever-popular fallback of tapping into state assets—an option we’ve already dismissed because “it belongs to all Lebanese.”
And so, we find ourselves in a perfect catch-22 closing in on itself. It’s no wonder that, five years into the crisis, we’re still at square one: the same debates, the same arguments and counterarguments, the same rants. And of course, Deputy Prime Minister Saadeh Shami with his entrenched ideas isn’t exactly the person likely to find a solution.
Nothing has proven more effective than a heavy dose of populism to sway an entire population.
nicolas.sbeih@icibeyrouth.com
