Lebanon needs an opposition to speak up for the entire country

Khaled Abou Zahr

Does Lebanon need a president? Let me reformulate, what can an elected Lebanese president achieve when the country is controlled by Hezbollah? And for that matter, what can a prime minister, a member of parliament or any public official do? Lebanon is stuck between the south being burned to the ground and instability in Syria from the north, with a sprinkle of a political vacuum. Surprisingly or not, the last of these is the least of Lebanon’s problems, as life can go on without the politicians.
At least for now, no sovereign voice is covering up or tacitly endorsing Hezbollah’s policies in front of the Lebanese or the international community. So I ask, why give Hezbollah this endorsement and firewall protection once again? What will the Lebanese gain from it?
This is why, on the current debate in Lebanon, I agree with Samir Geagea’s stance regarding the election of a president, which states that there is no need for consultations. There is a parliament, let it play its role, quorum after quorum, until a president is elected. At least, in this manner, we will see who the ruling force is and who the opposition is. Any other solution gives a full political guarantee to Hezbollah to do whatever pleases the militia and its patrons in Tehran, while blaming any ills on the Lebanese state. This is also why, today, Walid Jumblatt should not take a centrist, weakened position but join forces in an opposition front and not be part of another cover-up of Hezbollah’s role and status.
Consensus and the “no winner, no loser” formula have brought devastating results in the country. Consensus is what permitted the cover-up of the Lebanese banking system’s Ponzi scheme or, as the Egyptian saying goes, “Shayyelni w’ ashayyelak,” which translates to “you load (stuff) on me, I load (stuff) on you,” or “you scratch my back and I scratch yours.” Today, for non-Arabic speakers, this saying is often used to denote corruption and backroom deals. It is the definition of the Lebanese political scene. Moreover, the formula has brought a unique winner and that is Hezbollah. The other communities have lost and these “consultations” are nothing but a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Opposition to Hezbollah — no matter how weak, even if it cannot do anything, even if it is nothing but a whisper — is a necessity. Western powers should put more effort into letting an opposition live, rather than pushing for a president that will yield to Hezbollah’s wishes. Even if not much can be done, the lines between the opposition and the ruling party cannot stay blurred any longer. This is the least that can be done. Lebanon needs a real opposition force. Even if it cannot stop Hezbollah from moving forward, it can voice its disagreement.
Finally, a real opposition would also offer a much-needed message to France and the US that, through their current initiatives and their choice of support packages, they bear responsibility for pushing solutions that give Hezbollah even more power and control. This comes with risks if pushed too far, yet this is a sad situation for any free voice in Lebanon.
Lebanon needs consultations, but not between members of parliament to choose a president of consensus. It needs consultations with the people of the country. Real town hall meetings, in which alternatives to the current political system are discussed. Lawyers, business owners, workers and mothers need to be included and this should be a roadmap for a new Lebanon. One might, rightly, ask what is the point when Hezbollah controls everything and silences any opposition? I believe in setting a goal or planning for a better future even in the worst of times. We cannot and should not give in to total despair and abandonment.
We have indeed noticed a larger part of the population starting to recognize that Hezbollah is only a symptom and the real issue is the national pact and constitution that keeps the country in a vicious circle. One short decade, the 1960s, made Lebanon shine economically, culturally and financially, but this is no longer enough to keep this system going. Even with its nostalgia. And let us be honest, this great period was a time when, against all other political ideologies, the promotion of capitalism and personal freedom made the Lebanese successful. Unfortunately, the structural base was flawed and so it was short-lived. Since then, under the mirage of libertarianism, the real force in Lebanon has been led by leftist militantism mixed with religion and Hezbollah is the final boss in this game. I am surprised that today, even on the constitution, progressive forces do not request a change and have accepted a constitution set up by what they usually call “colonizing and invading powers.” In all fairness, their proposed solution is just as dangerous and serves Hezbollah, as they see the sectarian divide being replaced with a centralized power that rips every community of its identity and forces them into uniform thoughts and beliefs.
Lebanon needs a united opposition bloc that does not stay silent as a militia takes over the decisions of peace and war. Opposition forces cannot hit each other or be accomplices in these actions or be the scapegoats. Someone needs to ask, in parliament, for an evaluation of Hezbollah’s actions. What has Hezbollah done since Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon? What territories has it protected or gained? Moreover, what unnecessary destruction has it brought upon the country?
If we look at the south today, we see Hezbollah serving its transnational ideology and ensuring destruction in Lebanon. The southerners, across religious groups, are caught between a rock and a hard place and are left with no hope. A real opposition would speak up for them and the entire country.