One must hope that when official results of parliamentary elections are announced today, Lebanon would not find itself in the same position where it was as late as yesterday: A nation that no party or entity seems able to unite. Most agree that the elections are unlikely to change the political elite that has been ruling the country, and battling between themselves over it, for the past three decades. Many expect the formation of a broad coalition Cabinet, including parties from both sides, regardless of the result.
For the past four years Lebanese politics has been dominated by two rival camps: The Western-backed March 14 alliance and the March 8 bloc that includes Hezbollah. Simplistic as it is, this division or political polarization has increased sectarian tensions to a level not seen since the end of the 15-year-old civil war.
Going into the election, the race for a majority in the 128-seat legislature appears too close to call. There are some 3.2 million eligible voters out of a population of four million. In the outgoing Parliament, the pro-Western bloc had 70 seats and Hezbollah’s alliance 58.
A close look at Lebanon’s political landscape reveals that the country’s Christian voters are very much divided about how they will cast their ballots. Some Christian voters are split down the middle while others want their representatives to step out of the shadows of both March 14 and March 8.
Hezbollah’s presence in the poll has naturally induced strong sentiment and language from the concerned parties, the US, Israel, Syria and Iran. But Hezbollah is fielding only 11 candidates. As such, a Hezbollah takeover is a bit of an exaggeration. If anything, involving Hezbollah more deeply in the political process — rather than shunning it — could be one way of bridging the sectarian divide. Polls suggest that the Lebanese opposition could emerge victorious. Most probably they will call for a national unity government. But March 14 is adamant about not joining a government where its rivals have a majority. Thus, another period of political paralysis is expected. The Lebanese, however, cannot afford to re-enter such a stalemate given the huge challenges facing them, the most important of which is forging a unified national defense strategy, a task which has become all the more important given the numerous Israel spy cells uncovered in the past month alone.
The latest crisis in Lebanon’s history began with the assassination in 2005 of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, followed by one of the most explosive moments when Hezbollah overran pro-government neighborhoods of the capital in violent clashes a year ago which killed over 100 people, in the midst of an extraordinary six-month vacancy in the presidency. Will the next four years be as turbulent as the last four in which tensions among the country’s various sects have repeatedly threatened to explode into a new civil war? But the Lebanese have suffered enough under the civil war. They know how it has hampered economic development and how things took a turn for the better once peace returned to their beautiful land. Therein lies hope.
Terrorism suspects and US law
Los Angeles Times yesterday commented on terrorism suspects, saying in part:
President Obama has departed decisively from the lawlessness and barbarism of the Bush administration’s anti-terror policies, even if you believe that he could go further. Preventive detention — holding someone primarily because of what he might do in the future — is an exception in the US judicial system. Under a federal law upheld by the Supreme Court, some criminal defendants can be detained before trial, but in some cases Obama is willing to dispense with a trial. He says he is determined to exercise that authority rarely and to subject himself and future presidents to oversight by other branches of government. Those are gratifying promises, but they also serve to remind that detention without trial, although commonplace in wartime, challenges basic assumptions of US justice when practiced over an indefinite period and an undefinable battlefield.
As in so many areas, Obama must drink from a poisoned chalice handed to him by his predecessor. By using “enhanced interrogation methods” — torture — to extract information, the Bush administration tainted evidence so that it cannot be introduced at either a trial or a military commission.
Historically, prisoners of war have been held until hostilities conclude. That’s relatively simple when the enemy is a national government and a war ends in surrender or truce. When the enemy is more amorphous, it is difficult to know when the battle is over and the combatants can return home. Given that, any system for holding prisoners in this conflict must be accompanied by a process for regular review — by Congress or the courts — to determine whether hostilities have ended and prisoners may be released. Such a determination cannot rest solely with Obama or his successors. None of the safeguards promised by the president can completely assuage a concern that the open-ended nature of the struggle against terrorism is undermining American values.
