Listen to the article
The concept of decentralization, which is currently being promoted by the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) Gebran Bassil, is not new. Indeed, decentralization has already been stipulated in the Taif Agreement. However, since 1989, when the accord was endorsed, the idea was never discussed seriously, nor implemented, as such, for many unclear reasons. One may guess that political obstruction and financial challenges are standing in the way.
Today, Bassil is putting forward a proposition involving a trade-off: granting the presidency of the republic to Hezbollah’s candidate, in return for decentralization, primarily for Christians. The FPM leader believes that the move would give the Christian community what they have been seeking ever since the civil war, which is the creation of a quasi-independent Christian entity.
However, the person who primarily undermined Christian aspirations for decentralization was none other than FPM founder and Bassil’s father-in-law, former president and army commander Michel Aoun. Under his command, the eastern region, which was controlled by the Christians during the civil war, was devastated by Aoun’s so-called “wars of liberation and cancellation,” thereby depriving Christians of all the leverage they had back then.
Many questions should be considered by the FPM leader at this point, including: What kind of decentralization does he plan to barter? Will decentralization be introduced upon approval of a relevant law or at the start of negotiations? What guarantees does Bassil have that a decentralization bill won’t be blocked after he steps aside and endorses Hezbollah’s presidential candidate, Marada leader Sleiman Frangieh?
How can one explain Bassil’s trust in his former ally, after the latter failed him in “building a state and fighting corruption” … and yet, he trusts that same party to support his decentralization aspirations? Doesn’t Bassil realize that his proposal could pave the way towards abolishing political sectarianism, which is also mandated by the Taif Agreement? Under Taif, equitable sectarian power-sharing will be eliminated in parliament and limited to the Senate which has yet to be established.
In such a scenario, how will the presidential and ministerial positions be distributed in the centralized state, considering that there is no constitutional provision addressing their distribution?
All these issues raise relevant concerns, especially among Christians, because advancing such a trade-off in the current political landscape seems implausible. At this point, one side is blatantly holding the reins of political, security, military, and economic decision-making in the country, and the bargain as suggested by Bassil, should not pin decentralization and presidency against one another.
In essence, the concept of trade-off shouldn’t even be an option. Rather, the only focus should be unshackling the state from those who have held it hostage and hijacked its decision-making. Only then can we discuss decentralization, and maybe more, without dreading a potential power struggle and armed insurrection.
