An Uprising within the Uprising

By Samir Kassir

Annahar - April 1, 2005

Perhaps the local Lebanese need to be distanced from the routine of following the daily events in order to sense the thirst for answers that is mostly felt by those Lebanese living abroad and thus realize the missing angles of this historical moment and become concerned about how to achieve its full potential.

Whether traveling to Europe or the Arab Gulf, the person coming from Beirut is greeted with a mixture of pride, zeal, curiosity, doubt and fear.

He soon notices that the fear sensed by expatriate Lebanese does not only spring out of what they hear about the series of bombings, but out of doubting "the Lebanese politician," whoever this politician might be. One would eventually find himself pushed to reshape his understanding of independence in a way that goes beyond its direct political dimension especially that whenever he returns to his daily follow-up on events, he senses the beginning of a disappointment that reaffirms that daily politics have not grasped the size of the achievement they helped produce.

It might be still early to question the opposition while the battle is not over yet. Criticizing this opposition might also be ill-placed after it came up with a new comprehensive statement that could be described as good on the overall even if it fell short of living up to the historic moment. Still, it might be necessary, during this transitional phase, to assess what has been called, and rightly so, the Independence Uprising (Intifada in Arabic). The statement issued yesterday by the opposition did not do that, despite the fact that it was released in the first meeting held after the March 14 unprecedented protest and after it has become certain that Syrian troops and the Baath regime intelligence in Lebanon were withdrawing in such a speed that makes of this withdrawal/victory a huge historic event.

As for the March 14 protest, not much has been said about it, or not what was supposed to be said anyway. First, looking at net figures, this protest has been the biggest opposition demonstration in modern Arab history (excluding national events sponsored by authorities, funeral demonstrations whether that of Abdul-Nasser, Um Kalthum or Abdul-Halim). In relative terms, i.e. relative to the number of resident inhabitants, this demonstration might be one of the biggest in world history that compares only to the summer of the French Revolution in 1789 and the days of March and November of 1917 during the two Russian revolutions and when the Iranian people took to the street in autumn 1978 and winter 1979. This alone deserves a moment of reflection, perhaps a stance of modesty on behalf of everyone. Since what one third of the Lebanese people did on that day was a confirmation of the independence status that the country had been living, which is far greater than any single one of those who contributed in making it or tried leading it. It was even bigger that the sum of the efforts of all of them put together, no matter what their role was in the past or the present.

As for the event of the speedy exit of the Syrian forces, not enough has been said about this either. Was it because this event was too good to be true? Or because the remains of the security system, which the Syrian intelligence left behind, have obscured the vision? Anyway, the joy has been missed while citizens, and those who are trying to lead them, almost failed to notice that a new page has been opened in Lebanese history and that this page requires a new kind of reading, or let's say a quality of reading different from that inspired by the calculation of sizes within the circles of the opposition.

There is no need now to refute some selfish behavior of X or Y in the opposition or to cite the mistakes that Y or Z had committed. The current independence status needs political expression with a parliamentary extension. Yet, we cannot but pause and look at the signals of dissatisfaction that society is sending to the opposition at large. And perhaps the first of these signals is related to the absence of an assessment of true sizes and particularly the estimation of the biggest size in the opposition formula, the size of the people in the street whether in its small organized part in political parties, organizations and movements or in its greater unorganized part.

For it is not normal that the opposition waits more than two weeks to hold its first public meeting to evaluate what happened on March 14th and salute those who made it possible.

It is also not normal to let this day's popular movement disperse even if it's hard to keep it at its current climax. It becomes as if it [the opposition] is telling citizens: Well done. Go home now. We will call if we need you!

Another signal of popular dissatisfaction is related to the absence of a clear mechanism for decision making and setting the sails as has been evident in the individual behavior seen in more than one public event and on sensitive issues related to the fate of the president of the republic whose term has been extended or to that of "the arms of the resistance" which means Hizbullah maintaining its military branch and the state inside the state that Hizbullah is currently guarding. Add to this the vague stance until yesterday on the cabinet crisis. The climax of this vagueness was attained when one of the opposition poles suggested, through a satellite television, a candidate for the premiership; the least that could be said about this nominee is that he occupies a dark spot in the Lebanese collective memory. But the biggest source of dissatisfaction might be the citizens feeling that the moment of victory coincided with a moment of reaping the fruits rather than starting anew.

While there are a number of people, who seem to possess a vision for the future and good discipline, the image of the opposition seems threatened as there are many opposition figures who only care about being in the right place at the right time whether there presence is related to parliamentary or presidential elections. It is true that there is a fine line between the attempt to broaden the opposition bloc by making the loyalist blocs fall apart, and the need for a new discipline in public life.

Yet, it is not impossible to reach a middle ground by giving former loyalists a chance to catch up on their past mistakes, without allowing them to insult citizens' memory by pretending to play leading roles in the opposition, especially when it comes to the formation of tickets for the upcoming parliamentary elections. Meanwhile, it is unacceptable for the opposition to give itself the image of the club of candidates to parliamentary elections. Even if Lebanon's parliament needs new blood, this does not mean that under the banner of renewing political life, the opposition makes citizens feel that all opposition figures are position seekers.

And what is said about the parliamentary elections market also applies to presidential elections. Even with the adjournment of this issue, it remains shameful to see that after this uprising, some of those who are running for the presidency are the same ones known for their endless defense of "the unity of [peace] track and [Lebanon's and Syria's] destiny" and for their indifference to the suppression of the national will in governing Lebanon's foreign and domestic affairs. Doesn't it feel suspicious that every Maronite politician feels, time and again, that he is a nominee to these elections only by virtue of being born into this sect? Isn't the marketing for presidential candidates "who have not been in the opposition for more than ten years" or whose nomination is merely a challenge an obstruction to the building of a state that respects its citizens?

Are these early questions? No, fellow comrades in the opposition, whether you are new or veterans, take to the streets and you will hear it. You will hear with it a call for you to take the initiative for an uprising of a different kind, an uprising against the self that would - in the aftermath of the end of the Baath regime's mandate - pave the way to the building of a modern state, a state of citizens and not a state of subjects.