Connecting the Dots

It has been a while since I've posted about Lebanon - other events made the political haggling seem trivial - with only one exception. To call up an old cliché, Lebanon's "political winds have not stopped blowing", and days after Bashar's infamous speech, it is interesting to note the continual divergence and convergence of the paths people are willing to take.

In a few days, Lebanon will have its Independence Day - our independence from the French (which I just had a barbeque for). In April, people will celebrate another independence - from the Syrians - and in May some already celebrate independence from Israel. Regardless of the day you think is most important, it has been 62 years since the first one, during which Lebanon has been burnt several times over. Claiming that history does repeat itself - although partially true - gives free rein to thinking that "there is nothing we can really do" - so for now, assuming a historical "veil of ignorance" might be more productive. The question we should be concentrating on is: Is Lebanon taking a turn for the better?

Reading certain media outlets gives the impression the answer is yes. Some bloggers also seem to agree, and others outline what may happen to Lebanon in the near future. Excluding the danger of Syrian retribution, political divisions are being engraved by personal aspirations, dreams of Lebanon's future, allegiance to foreign powers, ideological hubris, socio-economic instability, real (and perceived) correlations between sect and class, etc.

With all this as a backdrop, it is interesting to visit our southern "neighbor", and look at Israel's new Labor Party leader, Amir Peretz, who is a Moroccan born Israeli. In Jewish classifications, he is a Mizrahim. Mizrahims are at times classified below other groups of Jews (and just above Arab Israelis), and are deprecatingly called "Tribes of the East". As evident in Israeli media, and as voiced by some Israeli acquaintances, there is rising racism aimed at Peretz, simply because "he who is below should not be above". Yet, he was able to make it. How will our system allow the less fortunate to make it? It is so easy to divide our society along concrete lines, as some have. The Maronites are the leaders, the Orthodox the intellectuals, the Sunni the business owners, the Druze marginal, and the Shiite ... well let's just say the Shiite are looked down upon because "they don't voice their opinion against Hezbollah", although a slight scratch tears this veneer and reveals deeper veins of condescension. If Peretz succeeds, he can revolutize the Labor Party. Will the FM or the PSP or the FPM let a Shiite become leader any time soon? Or are their leaders, advocates of democracy, in their positions for life?

At this moment, the Shiite have only a couple of representatives. Others had tried to emerge during the elections with no success (one was accused of being a CIA agent). Because of this, it is extremely easy to equate the "Shiite community" with Hezbollah - and people find it "logical" to just coagulate them together in their analysis, which is in itself a fundamental flaw in political reasoning. Currently, Hezbollah has the only Lebanese militia. Ignoring the fact that others who were once in militias (during the war) still have their weapons (and that several months ago, some stated that they would be willing to use them agains "certain factions", and that hordes of weapons have been found with other groups), the militant arm of Hezbollah must be disarmed, if only to provide the perception of a fairer playing ground (although there are more reasons). This could effectively force Hezbollah to restructure itself in order to strengthen its political power base. It is also hard to ignore that Hezbollah has taken several wrong turns, with an apparently blatant disregard to the direction it is pulling Lebanon - something that lead to a possible comparison with the SLA. There is also the constantly nagging fear in certain circles that Hezbollah wants Lebanon in the image of an Islamic Republic, and that negating confessionalism would allow Hezbollah to become a political majority. Statements like "we don't want to be another Iran" are already rife, and on a more subtle level, comparisons to the recent advancements of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are being put forth. This criticism does not reduce the governments responsibility towards villages in the south, in which Hezbollah, unlike the government, does actually have a comprehensive social network. Because of this, constantly attacking Hezbollah without offering a viable substitute is tantamount to providing even more of a reason for Hezbollah to continue along its current stance.

As a result of Hezbollah's "extremist nature", and their "disregard for democracy", a percentage of Aoun's supporters (and those who don't support him) are slightly uncomfortable with his current relationship with Hezbollah, but for many more, "Aoun jeyih min allah", and thus the reciprocal courtship poses no internal conflict. An economic explanation has been put forth, which others have (correctly or incorrectly) noted is one-dimensional. The post's explanation follows along the lines of the Marx-Engels perpective that history is put in motion by economic forces, but the past 100 years have shown that other social and psychological factor play a role. The economic drive may be there, but it should also not be forgotten that the facets of human behavior are not coplanar. The apparent strength of Hezbollah (due to arms), and the fears people have with regards to these arms, as well as the rising dominance of Sunni politicians has led to a continued disenfranchisement of Christian groups (whether their fear is real or perceived is inconsequential), leading the Patriarch to issue certain reproachable statements several months back, to his more "nationally oriented" one a short while ago, and his much more recent call that "Christians Unite", which to some may seem pertinent given, among other things, the recent student outbursts. Gemayel is trying to rise again through the Kataeb, although a fan of his father's recently told me that he "isn't going about it in the right way". Although leaders may not voice this publicly, a large part of the Christian constituency (I should actually be more specific with regards to the sect ...) insists that Lebanon is a "Christian nation", a statement at complete ideological odds with their worries of an Islamic one.

Anyone for secularism?

It seems that several leaders are trying to cross sectarian lines to unite for common causes. If this is done for reasons other than personal aspirations, I will applaud them. But keep the ratio of leaders to people in perspective when we announce that this shows the "healing of our wounds". Reality doesn't hide itself too well, even if you do live outside the country.

What about the West's "positive influence"? It is interesting (and easy) to try and pose Lebanon's crisis in terms of international flows - the battle of East and West. The clash of civilizations. The Islamic Jihad and the Christian Crusades. Things can make sense, in the same way things made sense in the 70's under Kissinger's enveloping view of world as a function of the Cold War, which completely and erroneously negated regional factors. Arabism is a concept that has to be dealt with, if only because it is constantly in the air. Some circles excessively try to undermine the West, and these circles have become easy targets for those who insist that there are only two choices. It has been said that the West aren't the ones who supply weapons to militias, but there is a cycle here that can't be ignored. All forces push and shove, and weighting them according to immediate and current dangers, which might be a seemingly logical approach, takes away from the idea that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Attacking one side of the coin - even if that side is more dangerous in present times - ignores that both sides belong to the same coin. There aren't many Lebanese fans of Angry Arab, but he hit on something when he wrote: "The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan gave us the Taliban. The American occupation of Saudi Arabia gave us Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The Israeli occupation of Lebanon gave us Hezbollah." Saudi influence also exists - there are others who are in a better position than I am to judge to what degree that influence exists, but it does exist - and downplaying it is either a result of partisan ideology, or because it is simply easier to blame other (possibly more negative) influences such as Iran. Of course, the ongoing violent discourse between some factions of Islam doesn't help, since it is spilling over into Lebanon, thus muddling the mix even more.

Seniora does seem to be ahead of the other political players in terms of action, control, and direction, and although I may share in some of the enthusiasm, I do not share in the emergence of trust, partly because of his past positions, among other reasons. However, it can't be denied that he may be the closest to becoming a national leader, regardless of how "nationalistic" other leaders (and their followers) may think of themselves. A national leader is not someone who appeals to all sects, but someone who is willing to have an agenda independent of sectarian lines. This might be a result of his business acumen, but that is only something history would eventually judge. He is one of the proponents of privatization (and is up against the usual groups), but if Lebanon is to become a player in the global market, one factor that has to be taken into consideration before the savy "pro-liberal economy" advocates jump in pleasure, is floating the Lebanese currency, which has been pegged because of its extreme instability. Are we willing to have it devaluate 2,3, or even 4 times?

And then, there is Jumblatt. The Jumblatt that lead people six months ago, the Jumblatt that has voiced his "Arabism" yearnings, and who nostalgically recalls the "great" Syrian days under Hafez Al-Assad. The Jumblatt of many faces. Because of his quick backtracks and propensity for changing lanes, Jumblatt has been said to be destabilizing. His sly political antics don't always work for the benefit for the country, but he does have one strength that Aoun does not have - Jumblatt cannot be president. Aoun is in the States lobbying for something now. Jumblatt is in the Arab countries lobbying for something else. Whose lobbying will bring more to Lebanon (or to himself)?

There was a marathon a short while ago, which people portrayed as the will of the Lebanese to unite together. I will not downplay this, because in a certain light, this is true. We do want life to go on peacefully. Our main clashes lie not in thinking that "our" way is better than "theirs", but in not comprehending why there is a "them" to start with.

Therein lies our problem. Going past all the current political maneuvers, attempts for stability, and assume that all the leaders are truly working for Lebanon, and are willing to put behind them any personal aspirations. Ignore all the yesterdays. Today, there are fundamental faults in Lebanese social life. Sectarianism. Poverty. Class divisions. Lack of Freedoms. These aren't mutually exclusive, either, and the major flaw, which encompasses all of the above, is the lack of opportunity. The current political "solutions" amount to nothing more than a quick fix, and a complete revamping of the system is also out of the question for now (as Hassan points out, this can lead to anarchy). The lack of development - be it economic, social, democratic - is enough for a pervasive line of thought to dominate public perception of leader vs. party. Lebanese tend to support the man. The party is all "ceremony". I've said this before, but Kais said it best in a very recent comment: "The fact of the matter remains that in Lebanon there are "leaders" and "followers". Real citizens do not exist." In the US, an individual may be a staunch Republican, but I have not met someone who thinks of Bush as divine. And this doesn't even touch upon the issue of accountability. Being even more cynical, it is fair to say that the high-end leaders are working only for their personal gain. Everything that has happened can be understood from that selfish angle. Should the citizens be that marginal? Some will say the government cares - they just funded 3,000 LL for the diesel. But it was just declared yesterday that this may result in an increase of the VAT. I will also remind you of the case of Farran. Assafir just had an article on this a couple of days ago describing how his body has still not been found, and how his family has given the government a letter asking for some sort of inquiry. Some fisherman were taken today by the Syrians because they crossed the boundaries. What about the prisoners in Syrian jails?

Since injecting new blood into the system is difficult, and since the most influential politicians are the ones who have sheep as followers (although not all followers are sheep), a different path has to be taken by the citizens. This time, I won't end my "rant" without some sense of action. In my mind, change in Lebanon will not mainly be instigated from political levels. It is easy to say that X and Y are united, and thus Lebanon is now in a stage of national unity. However, that negates the power of perception - perception of being a victim. And these are defined by different lines. Lebanon is a social time bomb. Making it politically stable does not imply much, unless that stability is built on a solid social foundation. Look at France.

Social change is generational. Bringing adults together for round-table discussions in an attempt to break through misguided perceptions will not do much, since this change has to be instigated with children. Fear of the other is not something to be taken lightly, yet it is constantly overlooked. How can it be eradicated? How can social networks be expanded past communal fault lines? I could quote the sectarian conversations and hateful comments I've heard by people who also claim that they "have Muslim friends" or "have Christian friends", but there is no need. What about children? Can't something be done at that stage in their lives, when still in elementary? Can't schools partner up with other schools in different districts - a sort of "sister" relationship, which could include "penpals", and possibly a yearly field trip? What would this do? For one, it would break down walls. It would give the "other" a human face. Would it change the current structure of society? I don't know. I do know that it wouldn't hurt. There have been examples of this in South Africa (after apartheid) and in Afghanistan (between different tribes) - with positive results. How positive these results are will only be known a decade or two later, but we have to start our steps somewhere. One thing is for sure though. Something has to be done soon.

posted by Lazarus, 8:04 AM