Implementing change in Lebanon

[Dry Ice]

By Marco Vicenzino
Saturday, July 04, 2009

The 1989 Taif Accord which ended Lebanon's Civil War also ended Christian dominance of national politics and drastically reduced presidential powers, through which Christian hegemony was constitutionally expressed. However, the symbolism of Lebanon's presidency can still carry significant political weight if its office-holder astutely uses it to extend his influence. By tipping the electoral scale in favor of the victorious pro-Western March 14 coalition, real Christian influence resurfaced for the first time in post-Civil War Lebanon. Ironically, it was lost through bullets and partially restored through the ballot box but will never return to its pre-Civil War status.

Assuming office as a compromise candidate, President Michel Sleiman has the opportunity to alter the national balance of power by shifting Lebanon toward a more nationalist, and less sectarian, character after the recent election. Sectarian differences and realities will always remain but can be reduced over time. To do so successfully, Sleiman must begin by uniting Lebanon's Christians and gain recognition over time as its chief representative.

Sleiman's personal assets include a moderate tone and pragmatic manner. As a retired general, he is also clearly identified with the military, one of the few respected institutions in Lebanon. The president must use these basic traits to begin serving as a uniting factor not only for Christians but to a broad range of secular Lebanese who seek a more normal state of affairs at home and abroad.

In theory, the president's role is largely ceremonial which prevents him from entering the political fray. He must avoid doing so publicly. However, he must play an influential role in overcoming political polarization and institutional gridlock. Through personal example, he must become the national spokesman for greater standards of transparency and accountability and help guarantee a better sense of popular representation in government.

Over time, his political capital can accumulate and gradually allow him to alter the political landscape - not so much to create a third force in Lebanese politics but to act as a constructive power-broker in positively shaping Lebanon's future. In his own peculiar way, Lebanon's president could emerge as a minor statesman in the region but a larger statesman in the wider world, particularly through subtle help from major powers.

Behind the scenes, Sleiman must influence the appointment of a more technocratic, and less political, cabinet of experts with vast international experience. This can help defuse political animosities, prevent a repeat of past crises and increase public morale, particularly among the young. Helping to ensure greater meritocracy in government can help overturn the prevailing popular cynicism toward politics. A common view in Lebanon is that nothing will change. Through results and efficiency, technocratic cabinet ministers can gain greater credibility. This can further increase their ability to influence the political process over time with public support.

The media and public activism will also play a crucial role. The predominant belief is that powerful interests own the media through which they exert influence. Through the use of current information technology, a young tech-savvy generation can help alter the popular debate, the balance of power in the media and the overall political process by holding public officials to account. In addition, responsible coverage by international media can prove effective. After all, most Lebanese can access global outlets through satellite television, radio, internet and print.

By influencing the selection of a more technocratic cabinet, Sleiman will also contribute to Lebanon's pressing economic needs. Despite a modest performance in recent times, Lebanon's economy cannot escape the need for fundamental structural reform to ensure long-term sustainability. Economic stability can also contribute to the long-term political stability necessary to attract greater foreign direct investment. It will be difficult to build a viable economy simply on bank deposits. In times of domestic and regional instability capital flight is always possible as is human flight which greatly threatens Lebanon's future. The departure of its prized young talent seeking opportunities elsewhere undercuts long-term growth.

Looming large over this cautiously optimistic analysis are shadow forces responsible for assassinating those daring to speak out for change. Inaction due to fear will only ensure the status quo, embolden these criminals and validate their actions. Ultimately, change in Lebanon can only take place through collective courage and action across the confessional spectrum.

Marco Vicenzino is the director of Global Strategy Project, Washington, DC.

[joseph_lubnan]

Change can only begin once everyone relinquishes their arms. It is the first step and without it no real progress is possible.

[freelebanonn]

Originally Posted by joseph_lubnan

Change can only begin once everyone relinquishes their arms. It is the first step and without it no real progress is possible.

lets start by the palestinian weapons first.then we start talking about hizbullah weapons.

[joseph_lubnan]

Originally Posted by freelebanonn

lets start by the palestinian weapons first.then we start talking about hizbullah weapons.

I couldn't care less which weapons go first. All must be relinquished for change to begin...

[freelebanonn]

Originally Posted by joseph_lubnan

I couldn't care less which weapons go first. All must be relinquished for change to begin...

u dont care i do. for the last 4 years 14 of feb kept talking about the danger of hizbullah weapons without mentioning the palestinian threat whatsoever.whatever the danger of hizbullah might be they are still lebanese and we should deal with them a such while the palestinians are not and their weapons is a breach to the lebanese sovereignty .

[Dry Ice]

Originally Posted by joseph_lubnan

Change can only begin once everyone relinquishes their arms. It is the first step and without it no real progress is possible.

Joseph, would you suggest stopping everything and focusing on the weapons?

Such solutions are implemented gradually and in parallel IMO

[joseph_lubnan]

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

Joseph, would you suggest stopping everything and focusing on the weapons?

Such solutions are implemented gradually and in parallel IMO

My view is that only minimal change and reform if any is possible or viable until the issue of the arms is resolved. Sadly no one gives this issue priority anymore, even-though it is no less than a de facto occupation because it is a direct cause of lack of sovereignty and undue influence. This era is worse than the occupation era because there isn't a single entity speaking loudly on this issue anymore. Except for me that is :)

[LiNk]

Originally Posted by joseph_lubnan

My view is that only minimal change and reform if any is possible or viable until the issue of the arms is resolved. Sadly no one gives this issue priority anymore, even-though it is no less than a de facto occupation because it is a direct cause of lack of sovereignty and undue influence. This era is worse than the occupation era because there isn't a single entity speaking loudly on this issue anymore. Except for me that is :)

Hi Joseph,

How do you plan facing Israeli-American plans for the region, what are your assets, your points of strength, that is if you do find them contradicting your country's interests in the first place.

Ty

[joseph_lubnan]

Originally Posted by LiNk

Hi Joseph,

How do you plan facing Israeli-American plans for the region, what are your assets, your points of strength, that is if you do find them contradicting your country's interests in the first place.

Ty

Lebanon wont even have a chance to face any threat until we have a sovereign democracy. We cant have a sovereign democracy until all weapons are relinquished.

[LiNk]

Joseph, please, spare me the empty slogans.

We both know that the core definition of sovereignty rests within the sole responsibility of the state regarding the defense of the land and the bearing of arms.

We both agree that this is a major step towards building a developed country.

However, we're not living on Neptune, and we belong to a screwy and abnormal region called the Middle East. Some plan is being worked out, while all indicators are pointing down again that we will be paying the price. And that will certainly not be the first time it happens.

What's your plan?

This ?

Originally Posted by joseph_lubnan

Lebanon wont even have a chance to face any threat until we have a sovereign democracy. We cant have a sovereign democracy until all weapons are relinquished.

This doesn't work Joseph.

I want a normal country as much as you do. But I also don't like being the fool everyone can molest and take advantage at when needed.

Suppose Hezbollah is disarmed and everyone's happy, how do you - excluding plans of submission and surrender - intend to prevent what's being cooked for us.