Be real!

By Kamal Sanjakdar

March/April 2006

BEIRUT: It is true that the confessional system and the weak position of Lebanon in the region always open doors for crisis. Unless this system is reformed and a strong state is built on secular basis we will have a crisis every 15 years.

Civil peace within those war intervals would only be due to one sect having an upper hand over all others. It was the Maronite bourgeoisie that ruled before the 1975 civil war, then came the Shiites and Jamil Sayyed after the warn ended in 1990 until the death of former PM Rafik Hariri. Today, no one knows who will be the next stability enforcer among the Lebanese after March 14, 2005.

Having said this, this does not mean that the solution for the dominance of one sect over all the others in Lebanon can be through what is called consensual democracy. 

Consensual democracy is a big deception and can never be achieved since whoever has the upper hand will never share power.

After the assassination of Hariri on Feb. 14, 2005 and the consequent withdrawal of the Syrian troops from Lebanon on April 26, 2005, the Lebanese balance between the sects in Lebanon is once again shaking. Some Lebanese, however, believe that it was the world that changed since that date.

Amid the change in sectarian status quo and the attempt to establish a new one, every party is trying to make as much gains as it can, whether through democratic elections or otherwise. Hezbollah, for example, will never put away its weapons.

This Hizbullah step will compromise the whole position of the Shiites in the country: A position that has cost the Shiites 15 years of war. What Hizbullah is actually doing, instead, is trying to buy time through alliances with March 14 in elections, drafting a joint declaration with Aoun and so on. Hizbullah is simply waiting for a regional shakeup that would either be in their favor (such as a US withdrawal from Iraq) or against them (such as the collapse of the Syrian regime or Iran breaking up its alliance with Syria). Talking about domestic Lebanese dialogue at this point is irrelevant.

Dialogue is also irrelevant in the case of the Lebanese presidency. Christians will not agree to anyone except Aoun, due to their ego. Unfortunately for them everybody is against Aoun: The Maronite Patriarch, March 14, America, France and even Syria and Hizbullah will sooner or later clash with him should he ever become president. Syria and Hizbullah are just using Aoun at this stage in order to undermine March 14 (the same way the Syrian regime used him against the Lebanese Forces in 1989). Should the Christian leadership adopt such a scenario, it will lose the same way it did in 1990.

As for electing a strong president to stand his course against corruption, I would suggest that the only way to stop corruption is through reinforcing the institutions and through a political mandate from the nation's majority. After all, everyone saw what a strong president like Emile Lahoud would cause the country during his fight against corruption.

After the 2005, the only party that emerged as a clear winner in parliament was March 14. This fact, in addition to the ability among some of the March 14 factions to initiate action and things together, makes them the best shot for the country today.

As for the "third way" political option some leftists are currently talking about, this has proven to be a choice that does not make any sense unless the leftists come up with the means that would put their option into reality. Otherwise, the left would be like former premier Salim El-Hoss whose ideas make perfect sense but are always out of context.

Today a new Taef Accord is needed for the country. In 1990, Taef was the only option for the end of the war. Those who opposed Taef, like Aoun, only brought more death and destruction to the country.

Today, such a new Taef can only be generated, maintained and sponsored by the March 14 group.

As for the issue of Syria, Syria has always been on our borders and this issue should not be a concern for our political agenda. I think Syria's geographic location is a detail and nothing to worry about. Relations between Lebanon and Syria will eventually patch up by themselves. Talking about damages from the deterioration in these relations is not important. In any case, if there has been any damage, it is certainly Lebanon that has suffered and not Syria.

Kamal Sanjakdar is member of Alternative staff