Listen to the article
Will Lebanon finally have a president come June 14th? The outcome is still shrouded in mystery, although democracy seems to have gotten the upper hand again. For now, only two candidates are running, in favor of three political actors instead of two clearly defined blocs. The composite, yet heterogenous group—as opposed to the unbreakable Amal/Hezbollah tandem—is possibly shaky and is made up of adversaries. In this case, and contrary to the saying, “the enemy of my enemy is not my friend,” there are not one but two enemies. Therefore, the current state of affairs is blocking out all chances for a political settlement and nurturing discord, the same discord that breaks the rule of law and facilitates extremism.
To make up for a shaky political settlement, those who support Jihad Azour against Sleiman Frangieh, a crony of the Iranian regime, state that their respective interests have converged, which may have made Azour their preferred candidate. A sigh of relief in the cedar country The question remains: will June 14th be Lebanon’s day of redemption? In a country ruled by militiamen and Mafiosi, no one dares mention the prevalence of democracy. Is the electoral battle scheduled to take place in Parliament really a face-off between two clearly defined ideologies? One can always doubt the veracity of these words.
Certainly, some of Azour’s supporters are outspoken detractors of the Amal-Hezbollah tandem that hijacked the state in total disregard of all constitutional laws. Also backing Jihad Azour are some “independent” sovereigntists. That being said, the FPM, the Christian ally of Tehran, would like to see to it that Azour is elected president, too. If the latter chose to position themselves that way, it’s solely because of the feeling of hostility they have for Sleiman Frangieh. It would be utterly naive to think that such a decision reflects a sudden shift in the alliance between the FPM and Hezbollah, Iran’s ally whom they helped spread Tehran’s hegemony over Lebanon, which they have been benefiting from since the 2006 Mar Mikhael agreement.
Besides, the FPM’s backing of Azour’s candidacy in no way means that the hatchet has been buried and that the relationship with Samir Geagea’s Lebanese Forces is back to normal. Only two electorate groups have to choose between two candidates, at least for now. But there are three political groups opposed to each other in a 2v2 fashion. In fact, the current confrontation is not a bilateral face-off but a three-way battle before a double enemy.
The understanding in question seems fallacious. The settlement over the Azour-Frangieh dichotomy is far from convincing. After all, Hezbollah, the face of the political game in Lebanon, is bent on keeping democracy from prevailing. The presidential face-off is not a slow-burn drama; it’s an eminently conflict-generating scheme. It solves nothing at all. On the contrary, it serves to advance the long-standing strategy of a coup, begun in 2005. Miracles notwithstanding, it would surely be hazardous to hope for the election of a president on June 14th. Will we have no president, then? Almost certainly not.
In this case, the Azouri/Frangieh equation will lose all its credibility, dealing a severe blow to the political reputation of Christians in Lebanon. Would other Maronite figures have better chances? Indubitably, that includes Gebran Bassil, leader of the FPM, whose principal rivals have been sidelined. Naming a future president is hardly the core of the problem; the issue we are facing pertains to defining the geostrategic identity of Lebanon, that country that Hezbollah is endeavoring to turn into a powerless vassal of Iran.
The double enemy strategy is now hindering the initial bipolar scheme and deadlocking the political game. Discord will continue to prevail among Christians (FPM/LF) and Muslims (Shia/Sunnis). This same never-ending discord will perpetuate the country’s curse and remain an obstacle to the quest for the common good. In the Muslim world, the first great discord, or fitna, arose following the assassination of Othman in the battle of the Camel (December 9th, 656). 14 centuries later, it still hasn’t been solved.
Will a miracle occur on June 14th? Will Hezbollah finally become a full-fledged Lebanese party? Will it agree to play a democratic role within the republic’s institutions? That is highly unlikely. In any case, even if a sovereign and just president is elected, he is bound to be a transitional one. His mandate will focus on the reestablishment of an independent justice system and the launch of the structural reforms Lebanon is in such dire need of. A president like this one can hope to become a beacon of good governance, as in Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s fresco displayed in Siena. However, if the double enemy situation is kept as is, he will become the unwilling symbol of bad governance pictured by the same Lorenzetti.
In all cases, it belongs to the politicians—notably the Christian ones—to draw the lessons and fully comprehend the meaning of sovereignty. It is about time they grew up and healed this morbid narcissism that makes them covet all the power they can lay their hands on.
