Bashing Hezbollah
Hezbollah is facing a lot of criticism, a lot of which is due, but some of which isn’t. Even on the blogosphere, there are several bloggers (one of whom I constantly learn something new from, and is a pleasure to read), who do point out Hezbollah’s faults. This post isn’t about bashing Hezbollah, partly because I doubt I could do as good a job as some of the articles and posts out there, and partly because there are others who also deserve an equivalent amount of bashing.The main issue here is that there is a disproportionate amount of blame and antagonism going around. There is faith in the March 14 bloc, who as of yet, have done very little. This isn’t only due to the Hezbollah and Amal members who withdrew from the cabinet. Lebanon has the highest debt to GDP ratio in the world. But let’s put that aside. Instead of dealing with more pertinent issues, the minister of interior believes it to be worthier to engage himself with a shouting match with Arslan. Geagea is still obsessed with numbers.
Hezbollah is a theocratic institution, it is highly probable that they do obtain their funding from outside sources, and they DO have weapons on the ground. Even more importantly, in speeches and interviews, they give the direct impression that they don’t care about Lebanese sovereignty, and are confrontational in their attitudes.
Yet, suddenly, all the March 14 players are depended on. One of them is on a full-throttled attack now, which, coincidentally, began soon after he lost funding from Iran. Another continues to embezzle from one of the more important companies for money. And now there are the issues of different groups training. It is hard for people to believe that other groups have begun training even though we live in a country where it is easy to import arms illegally. Why? Have those players become wiser?
The government is now stuck within calls for consensus and calls for majority rule. For long-lasting benefits, the latter is the right path, as long as clauses exist for minority rights; after all, rule of the majority at the expense of the minority is not a viable democratic structure. Granted, Hezbollah is not a democratic party. How much more democratic are the other parties? How often do they have elections for the party heads? Were our current leaders really elected democratically, given all the money that was used, and some of the more questionable religious statements concerning select candidates? This is an issue that should be dealt with in the new election law. In addition, as time passes by, and as the “national dialogue” continues to vaporize, we have to be aware of the possibility of early elections with Hezbollah and Amal withdrawing from parliament – an action that some will surely call a coup d’etat. It remains to be seen if this card will be played.
During discussions about this, a standard argument people use in order to prove a point is America’s structure of majority rule. I second that – but let’s take the analogy further. You’ve all heard of the recent Tom Delay scandal. In 2003, Davis (previous governor of California), was recalled. Will certain members of the government resign, or be questioned, concerning their current corruption practices? Or does their involvement in the Cedar Revolution give them a carte blanche?
Back to Hezbollah. JoseyWales, from Lebanonesque, asked a very important question that deserves to be highlighted again: If Israel attacks Iran, will Hezbollah be asked to retaliate? This question should be laid on the table to Hezbollah members. Hezbollah must engage in discussions with regards to their weapons. They have presented a desire concerning this, the seriousness of which might be questionable, but it was the March 14 bloc that initially refused this before the elections. Why?
Following the policy and not the politician is all good when the politicians in question aren’t as unstable as an inverted pendulum, but at this point of time in Lebanese history, only doing that is detrimental. It is time to stop seeking excuses for actions, and to demand explanations. From all.
posted by Lazarus, 1:31 PM
5 Comments:
The politicians that you decry were elected by the Lebanese citizens. Theses politicians represent the March 14 bloc by name only. It was their instinct for self survival that forced them to coopt a fledgeling movement that was never given the chance to actualize its potential.
Why did this happen? Why are the same traditional politicians in power? They have failed to deliver anything osf substance over decades, so why do we legitimately expect them to deliver now?
To cut to the chase I am suggesting that the real problem is not the politicians. It is us, the citizens. We maintain the same loyalty , to the same traditional leaders and we never hold them accountable for anything. Our leaders will change when we do. The structure of society will be transformed only when we transform ourselves. It is time that we finger the real villain. Leaders are a reflection of the attitudesand mores that are prevalent in the community. Change will not come from above. If it is to sustain itself and be meaningful revolutions come from below. Make no mistake, a paradigm shift is a radical revolutionary development that results only when we adopt a different vision of who we are and what is our function in society. "I have met the enemy and it is us".
By
Anonymous, at 2:39 PM
BTW Laz,
Sayyed Nasrallah apparently said that Hezbo won't retaliate for Iran's sake, or if Iran is attacked (over nukes). Good.
Sorry can't find the story, think it was on Naharnet 2-3 days ago, and not sure about the exact wording.
You are right, our criticism should be tempered, on some issues, but not on others.
Also have you seen the ulemas story?
By
JoseyWales, at 6:30 AM
true JW, I read that yesterday, after posting. Thanks for the link to the ulemas story.
Ghassan: a while back, i may have agreed with part of what you say. In fact, some of my previous posts may have been written in such a vein. However, now I think that type of approach easily justifies the concept of "no change", which I don't agree with. It can't just be expected for society to "transform" themselves, without some form of leadership. And it can't be expected that they don't want better lives. One case in point is South Africa. Would society have transformed itself past apartheid if Mandela and co. (or someone of that caliber) weren't involved?
By
Lazarus, at 7:28 AM
Laz,
The premise for my position is that there is a need for a paradigm shift. If you do not believe that a paradigm shift is required, thats fine. Actually those who advocate for a paradigm shift must be in the minority by definition otherwise their views will be the mainstream. Furthermore, a paradigm shift, also by definition, is NOT gradual change. It is defined as a process that is based on discontinuities, it creats quantum leaps. That is why I am opposed to gradualism because to my mind that changes the system only at the periphere and maintains the essense of the disease. Paradigm shift does not imply , at all,that one accepts the status quo. It is actually the most revolutionary idea, we need to educate and change peoples vision of reality because if they maintain the traditional idea about their role in society then all small changes will be only superficial. If the doctors determine that what ine needs is chemo then no amount of statins will help.
By
Anonymous, at 9:31 AM
Ghassan, I believe we are both saying similar things in that regard. We do need a paradigm shift. But, since we are discussing physical systems, no realizable system, unlike theoretical ones, is perfectly modeled with a set of impulses. That might be where we differ. Such a revolutionary shift, which I have said before is fundamentally needed for any viable Lebanese system, will be difficult to be realized instantaneously. Change, described with such parametric quantum leaps, is kin to asking people to accept extreme instability for a period of time, under the assumption that things will eventually enter the invariant set of stability. That is why I am of the opinion that such paradigm shifts will not combust spontaneously. In order to change people's vision of reality, there has to be another reality that isn't only based on ideals, but is also defined on a set of functions which allows a mapping from the collaboration of leadership and people to change. That does not have to be gradual, but it does have to be well-defined.
By
Lazarus, at 9:49 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home