Leftist Independent Groups: It's time for merger

BEIRUT - Leftist Independent Groups are perhaps the only young alliance that deliberates its actions in total democracy that nears anarchy. But with an increasing apathy, consumerism and sectarianism, it has become high time for these groups to intensify their coordination that might eventually lead to merger.

Ever since the first one of these groups was created some six years ago, the main ideas behind their creation was a reaction to Lebanon's patriarchal society and its tribal politics. The groups therefore stressed the "no-leader" phenomenon and loosened their structure keeping their organization at a grass-root level.

The groups also highlighted the importance of their "student" nature insisting to cut any links with politicians and prominent figures from the elder generation.

Some young communists who hope to see the Lebanese Communist Party (LCP) reformed someday also thought that it was better to keep these organizations loose. Once the party restores its past leadership role, these communists argue, Leftist Independent Groups would lose their raison d'etre. Reform at LCP is yet to be seen.

Leftist Independent Groups first appeared as a reaction to an awkward temporary situation. But the situation persisted and became the rule rather than the exception. As events unfolded, the number of leftist groups increased but their organization maintained their loose structures.

As time went by, young leftists found themselves stuck in these groups. Groups started coordination, which fell short of bringing them together.

Coordination remained insincere, random and occasional. Last summer, an attempt to launch what came to be called the Leftist Platform as an umbrella organization for all groups failed. Reasons behind this failure were not discussed and treated as the merger attempt was aborted.

A leftist insider, however, would notice that several reasons led to the breaking of merger negotiations not the least of which was the leftists' inability to compromise. The different groups also wanted to maintain their independence with non-binding coordination.

Such disagreement brings to the mind of those familiar with the US history a similar quarrel between supporters of the establishment of a federal union in America - the feds - and those opposed to it.

While the feds believed that every state should compromise its independence in favor of offering funds and political support for a central and strong federal government, different states feared that a strong central authority might be transformed into a monarchy similar to the English one that they had just fought and toppled. The result was a civil war.

Leftist groups have always feared that strong central committees would scrap democracy and produce figures similar to the dominant Lebanese politicians.

Another point of disagreement was the inability to tolerate the diversity in leftist thought. Ever since the groups were established, members agreed that they would not adopt a rigid ideology. Instead, founders said that these groups would endorse a broad leftist perspective that allows the membership of all Marxists including communists, socialists, sociodemocrats and anarchists. In case groups decide a union, there is no reason that every member can maintain his/her dogma.

But as usual, leftists displayed their inability to compromise. A communist, for instance, expected that the umbrella organization would adopt communism, word by word. Socialists wanted an ideology that resembled theirs while anarchists promoted their visions. The result was less coordination among the groups save for a few instances when circumstances mandated that they come up with unified stances.

But after years of experience, Leftist Independent Groups should realize that the harm inflicted on the LCP is irreversible and that communists should move forward and start thinking of forming their own new democratic leftist umbrella organization.

Leftists should also realize that with rising apathy, consumerism and sectarianism, there is no room for delay in merger. The dominant mood of no-commitment also makes it harder for the appearance of mini-dictators in any new party.

Finally, the groups should give up some of their independence and delegate some responsibilities coupled with funds and contributions to a central strong committee that should represent the union of these groups. In universities, however, these groups might retain some independence, just like the states in the US. In sum, LIG should form their own clever system that entertains both sustainable democracy and a strong union.

Hussain Abdul-Hussain is a reporter at the Beirut-based The Daily Star. He wrote this analysis for Alternative