LEBANON simply cannot afford to be in political gridlock over the choice of its new president. Parliament was due to elect a successor to Emile Lahoud yesterday but postponed the vote for a month because of the lack of agreement. The longer the political process fails to throw up a consensus candidate, the greater the opportunity for the men of violence to add to the growing instability which could destroy everything achieved in the 1989 Taif Agreement that ended the appalling 15 years of civil war.
Thus the decision by MPs to delay the crucial presidential vote until Oct. 25 is a dangerous mistake. The reasons for the standoff are simple. Hezbollah and other pro-Syrian parties do not want a president who will favor the West and facilitate a UN investigation into the murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and other anti-Syrian politicians. They also argue the Taif Agreement recognized the role of Syria whose decisive intervention did bring an end to the civil war, even though Damascus itself had been one of the behind-the-scenes players in that awful bloodletting. The so-called pro-Washington parties believe that only by working closely with the West will Lebanon restore its former pivotal place in Arab affairs, not least as a financial and commercial center.
At first sight there would seem to be no common ground. The Lebanese president, who is elected for six years, is more than a constitutional figurehead; in fact, he has substantial powers. Though the role is by agreement always held by a Maronite Christian while the premier is a Muslim, the presidential contest is between the pro-Syrian Michel Aoun (once no friend of Damascus) and three anti-Syrian candidates who have all been variously characterized as pro-Washington.
The question arises naturally: Where is the pro-Lebanese presidential candidate?
If it is accepted — as it must be — that all Lebanese politicians are committed to peace and the political process, why is it that they are prepared to risk the future of their country by taking partisan positions related to outside powers? It was precisely the interference of non-Lebanese interests that led to the civil war and the catastrophic disintegration of civil society. Did not those 15 nightmare years teach the Lebanese that they must be their own masters and reject intervention by anyone? If that were not lesson enough, has not the abject failure of Iraq’s elected legislators to form a broad-based government built on consensus provided sufficient warning of the cataclysm that awaits a failure of the political process?
The Lebanese need a president whose first and last concern is the future of Lebanon and one who pays no heed to the siren calls of Washington nor Damascus nor any other capital. For sure, the country must work with others, but in its own interests. Therefore the sooner this extremely dangerous delay is ended with the selection of a pro-Lebanese president, the better it will be.
