It was with great expectations, though with bated breath, the people in several countries awaited the results of the roundtable dialogue between rival factions in Lebanon held in the country’s capital. It is widely believed that the dialogue is not an exclusive Lebanese affair as every group participating in the talks is controlled by some extraneous but invisible forces that closely observe and follow the developments giving timely advice and at times the advice takes the tone of an order.
The dialogue broke off shortly after its start and the Druze leader Walid Al-Jumblatt left for the United States. The other participants apparently made consultations with their respective supporters in various Arab and non-Arab capitals. The general impression was that while it was a no-win, no-lose situation for the participants, the pressing economic, social and political issues were pushed to backstage with no end in sight for the country’s woes. Actually it was a dialogue of the deaf as none of the participants could listen to others. Not unlike other Arabs, each Lebanese faction believes it is the winner and a winner takes all prizes.
Lebanon is geographically a small nation. Rival politicians representing diverse groups fail to find out a way to rescue the country from the quagmire in which it is sinking. Nothing could be expected from Arab nationalist leaders to keep the country afloat, giving it a chance to breathe and usher in a new age. After all, the Arab leaders could not do anything worthwhile in Iraq, Sudan or Algeria.
Lebanon cannot be compared to Singapore, Malaysia or Belgium with their multiethnic and multilingual identity. It is typical of the Arab character for the rival groups in a country to be inflexible in their mutual relations and squander all opportunities to hammer out an understanding to end their disputes over vital issues while, paradoxically, surrendering their right to decide their own destiny to some outside powers.
Most of the Arab political issues, perhaps, spring from each group’s urge for overpowering the other groups, for which they spend all their energy. One wonders if the rivalry between Fatah, Hamas and Jihad groups, for instance, is bitterer than their hatred toward Israel.
The elections in Iraq were, obviously, free and fair. Yet, no government has been formed and no meeting of the elected Parliament convened. Only the sound and fury of fiery exchanges between rival groups heralding a civil war is being heard.
This is a peculiar feature of the Arabs in general, not confined to Lebanon or Syria, though its manifestations are more pronounced there. While some factions in Lebanon rally round the slogan of nationalism, some others claim that they alone are patriotic and capable of saving the country and condemn all other factions as traitors. Each faction believes that those who do not toe its line of thinking are the greatest enemies of the nation. This approach inevitably leads to an impasse in any kind of talks. It can also be noticed that the Arab nationalism has, some how or other, remained an obstacle on the road to the Lebanese nationalism and provided an excuse for the bloodshed the nation witnessed during the civil war.
The modern political philosophy stipulates tolerance of political parties with diverse views in a country. The practice in the Arab lands is just the opposite. The Arab societies should, like other societies, strive for the betterment of the living conditions of the people after guaranteeing them freedom, equality and security.
These are the simple principles that have been successfully applied in most societies of the world. God has not given the authority to any people to force a society to abandon its religion and embrace another one. God has also not given the authority to any people to coerce another people to accept their political ideologies and convictions.
The systems of governance of modern states including Lebanon accept amendments if required. Constitutions could be amended in a legitimate manner. On the other hand, national agreements of the old days, such as the national charter prepared under the supervision of Bashara Al-Khouri and Riyad Al-Solh or the Taif agreement in recent times under the supervision of Rafik Hariri are being violated by some factions to further their vested interests. It is because the country is being treated as a “farm” and not as a “state.”
With the murder of Al-Solh the national charter was left to disintegrate and with Hariri’s murder the Taif agreement remained unimplemented.
The concept of a modern state is the antithesis of rashness. Those who follow their reckless whims will never build a state. They will, instead, end up in a wilderness where the strongest alone will survive. They should know that a muscular body without wisdom would not accomplish anything.
