Listen to the article
The recent geopolitical developments within the Group of Five regarding the election of a President of the Republic in Lebanon and the urgency of it provide an opportunity to reflect on Chehabism and its renewed expression, if it indeed exists, neo-Chehabism. In his book on Fouad Chehab, Bassem el-Jisr asks, “What is Chehabism? Is it loyalty to Fouad Chehab as a man? A nationalist political vision? A style of governance? A combination of fundamental principles based on goals to achieve? Or all of this at the same time?”
The difficulty of this question lies in the fact that, unlike other great leaders such as Nasser or De Gaulle, Fouad Chehab and his supporters did not create a party based on the principles laid out during his term, which supported state reforms undertaken from 1958 to 1970.
Yes, 1970. Because Fouad Chehab’s presidency ended honorably and humbly in 1964 after his refusal to allow the majority of deputies to amend the Constitution and enable him to serve a second term, then President Charles Helou (1964–1971) continued his work. This was despite Nasser’s defeat in 1967, which disrupted the region’s geopolitics. But it marked the beginning of the end. In 1968, Chehabist deputies (Al-Nahj) were ousted from Parliament by the Maronite alliance (Al-Helf). Finally, the Cairo Agreement of 1969 between the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Lebanon, which endorsed the right of Palestinians to use Lebanese territory for military operations, put an end to the Chehabist experiment.
The 1970 presidential election, which pitted Chehab’s spiritual son, Elias Sarkis, against Sleiman Frangieh, could have given new life to Chehabism. But in the end, it was Frangieh who won, despite the Constitution. The Constitution states that the president must be elected by a majority plus one vote. However, this was not the case. General Jean Nassif, then the personal secretary of former President Fouad Chehab, told us, “Parliament Speaker Sabri Hamadeh refused to proclaim Frangieh’s victory, citing the Constitution. That’s when René Moawad, a fervent Chehabist, contacted Fouad Chehab. Chehab’s response was: “Tell Hamadeh to announce Frangieh’s accession to the presidency.” And Nassif continues, “Chehab, above all, wanted to avoid any bloodshed. He often repeated that he didn’t want any blood (‘Ma bedde damm’).”
But let’s return to the present time. The recent meeting in Riyadh between Nizar Alaoula, an adviser in the Saudi Royal Court responsible for the Lebanese file, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Lebanon, Walid Boukhari, and the French President’s personal representative for Lebanon, Jean-Yves Le Drian, appears to have resulted in an agreement among the Group of Five, with two crucial points: setting a “deadline” for the presidential election and considering a “third way.”
One could consider that this “third way” was the one that Fouad Chehab had laid out for Lebanon. In line with what de Gaulle did in France, he wanted to establish a state that balanced social democracy and liberalism. He considered the following principles fundamental: protection of Lebanese independence and sovereignty, fraternity and solidarity with Arab countries, openness to the West, national unity, and social justice. As Bassem el-Jisr expressed in 1998, these are precisely the principles of Chehabist philosophy on which the necessary reforms for the country should be based.
General Jean Nassif tells us about the current Saudi Ambassador to Lebanon: “Boukhari studied at AUB. He wrote a thesis on Fouad Chehab, and under his influence, the Kingdom’s universities have included courses on Chehabism in their political science curricula. This ‘third way’ is not surprising.”
Neo-Chehabism, in the current context, could therefore be interpreted as a desire to return to the foundations laid by Chehab: a strong state, robust institutions, and a national vision that transcends communal divisions. With the hoped-for presidential election approaching, it is crucial for candidates and the Lebanese people to draw inspiration from this philosophy to lead the country out of the impasse. One question remains, though: who among the candidates is best positioned to embody this vision?
