The skies above us are still dark and overcast.

Friday, May 29 2009

Lebanon is currently going through a number of crises as a result of the impending parliamentary elections. The reality of the situation will soon be revealed, the day following the elections as the various groups including the political power involved in these elections will show that there will be no change in the internal power balance or in the current political layer which rules Lebanon. Simple scrutiny of the slogans used in the various speeches being made, as publicized by the media broadcasters, whether internal, regional or international, indicate the risk of further conflict, internal crises owing to domestic and regional circumstances, and an as yet unknown external balance.

It is generally accepted in Lebanon that the national unity government headed by Fouad Seniora, which was created by the Doha agreement and which has pitted the two sides in conflict for over four years, has not been able to shore up the nation, despite the fact that it was the result of a regional and international agreement to stop Lebanon from falling into renewed civil war. Also, it has been unable to make use of the external balances in order to strengthen the state institutions and secure the state. This work was based on the directives of foreign affairs and their various interests , which are as yet unclear due to changes taking place in the highest echelons of power, namely the United States of America, with the new administration of Barack Obama which is still citing the slogans for change on which its campaign was built. The lack of clarity which has characterized the first days of this administration is also being seen in the region and within Lebanon; indeed, the position of Walid Jumblatt is the best expression of the uncertainty which permeates the political arena as it waits for the Obama administration to formulate a clear strategy on settling the Arab-Israeli dispute and on the issue of Iranian nuclear capabilities. Let us leave to one side the rhetoric and slogans relating to conciliation with the Islamic world as announced by President Obama himself in Ankara. It is important to translate these statements into the initiative in Cairo due to be held on the 4th of June. These statements are all no doubt appreciated as they express the desire of the new American administration to change the policies of the George Bush administration which damaged the reputation of the United States not only in the Arab and Islamic world, but also globally. However, the statement by the official White House Press Secretary to postpone the launch of Barack Obama's initiative and his perceptions on peace in the Middle East during his impending visit to Cairo indicate that Washington in still in its exploratory phases and has not yet developed a final road map. This is also indicated by the Obama administration maintaining the sanctions against Syria. This is related to Obama's position following the completion of his trip and discussions with King Abdallah of Jordan, Israeli President Shimon Peres and Benyamin Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas and Hosni Mubarak.

In this context, it is not enough for President Obama to be decisive in his diplomatic dealings with the region until events settle down. Israel's approach to the situation contradicts that of the American president. Netanyahu sees the 'existential threat' in the region as represented by Iran, though this is not yet Barack Obama's official line – he sees that the answer to diffusing the tension in the region is tied to a two-state solution, that is a Jewish state and a Palestinian state. As for Lebanon, it seems from the current American manoeuvring as represented by the various official visits, the most recent of which was by the American Vice-President who singled out one of the parties for a lengthy meeting in the election season, that the new American administration does not agree with the previous administration's one-sided support. This support had negative effects for the country, not because of indirect interference in the elections but also and more importantly, because it helped to maintain the divisions suggested by the American position – this position sought to use the army to work for the victory of a particular group which does not support this army but rather threatens the fate of this institution which has remained united and singular in its ability to secure wide Lebanese support as it maintained itself at a distance from everyone else over the past four years while remaining at the same time a safety valve for national peace. So how are we not to fear for the army and its institutions if the consolidation of its abilities depends on the political side which will rule in the coming days?

The National Dialogue Party has advised the Lebanese citizens not to vote until the two powers involved in these elections realize that they have been detrimental for democracy and have violated the basic principles of elections, starting with a backward electoral law and its the various divisions, particularly in Beirut, through to the sectarian tension and ensuing paralysis, which have served as a prelude to reaping the benefits of this policy in the post-elections period. It is not enough for the Speaker of the House, Nabih Berri, to rightly promise that the electoral law of 1960 will not be repeated 'as long as the sky is blue' (to use one of the election slogans), because such a promise has come too late and indeed our skies are threatened by dark clouds from the crises which will come after these elections!

We are confident that the results of these elections will be a disaster for the Lebanese people. We say this not out of pessimism but rather because of the daily reality of developments in the electoral campaigns. Everyone realizes that there will be no change in the balance of power and that the elections are more akin to partisanship than to than free competition (and while we are on the subject, it is laughable that the some of the candidates in Beirut are denying allegations of partisanship in getting their seats which actually constitutes a violation of the Doha agreement!). Yet, despite all this, the battle still rages. Let us look for instance to the report which was published by the prestigious German paper and which claimed that Hezbollah was involved in the assassination of the late Prime Minister Hariri! Is it not noteworthy that a new suspect is being brought forward in this case? There are those who would sow the seeds of new sedition to reap the results the day after the elections – this has been described by Jumblatt as 'the Ain al Remanneh bus', in addition to the arrival of the international tribunal onto the political scene. The conflict indicates that this tribunal is a dangerous weapon for conflict and division between the Lebanese people after the elections. How so? The two conflicting sides have co-existed together since the Doha agreement. This put forward the possibility of a transitionary phase which would help in the creation of a state and would help to bring life back to the state institutions starting with the upcoming parliament. However what happened was the exact opposite – for instance note the conflict over the administrative appointments and the Constitutional Council. Instead, it led to the breaking apart of the state in the interests of the sectarian and confessional leaders in which the two sides divided up the security of the nation, its economy and its jobs. The elections will simply consolidate this, while the regional and international balance of power remains the active controller of internal apportioning. The shares of each side will rise and fall in accordance with changes in the external balance of power, which include the conflicts the price of which will be paid by the Lebanese people in martyred citizens, displaced people, young immigrants. After all this, is it not strange that a foreign publication is used to inflame the Lebanese interior and to work for it to become once again an arena in which regional and international conflicts would be fought out. The land is fertile and the issues are ready and there is more than enough to ignite the whole area!

And now, after all this, is it not logical to fear for the security of the country, its economy and its social security, in the shadow of the rule of the two groups who won in Doha and who are sharing the elections? If the army succeeds in the security test – and indeed the security forces have been successful of late – of discovering the spy networks for the Israelis, what then will support the devastated economy whose fate is tied not only to a global crisis whose extent is not yet known, but also to a national debt which has exceeded 50 billion under a financial rule which has been ongoing for over 20 years and which looks likely to continue functioning in the same manner thus assuring a dark economic future? The required conciliation is elusive in such a situation and the external circumstances are difficult to implement as they pass through Israel who is extremely involved in Lebanon. We then have this political layer, which renews itself through a clumsy electoral law, bringing crisis upon crisis to the country, if not an actual civil war, it waits for regional tension to be resolved and for the American administration to resolve its issues. This political layer needs to realise that it is playing with fire and threatening the existence of Lebanon in these elections and should immediately pass a new electoral law which depends on proportional representation following the 7th of June elections. We at the National Dialogue Party firmly believe that the real solution for Lebanon lies in passing an electoral law which is based on proportional representation and in working immediately for elections as soon as possible as the necessary and natural way of solving the never-ending paralysis in the Lebanese political system which has led to a succession of civil wars and external military and other involvement in our affairs every since Lebanon gained its independence.