Lebanon is suffering a dangerous leadership vacuum caused by the inability of Parliament to agree on a new president. Friday was President Emile Lahoud’s last day at the Baabda Palace, which is now awaiting a new incumbent.
In the meantime the rift between the March 14 coalition and the Hezbollah-led March 8th opposition is growing and there are even murmurings that another civil war could be in the offing. To borrow a quote from Dr. Phil, What are they thinking?
Not only are they unable to reach a consensus on a candidate, they cannot agree on whether consensus under the constitution requires two-thirds of the parliamentary vote or a simple majority.
In the absence of a president, the Cabinet, headed by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, has temporarily taken over presidential duties, a move which Hezbollah terms unconstitutional.
Moreover, Hezbollah has accused the government of operating without constitutional legitimacy since Shiite ministers quit in November last year following Siniora’s endorsement of a UN tribunal to try the assassins of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. They did so in hopes of bringing down the government and when this didn’t happen, Hezbollah and Amal urged their supporters on to the streets causing a paralysis of the economy, triggering the fleeing of foreign investors to pastures more profitable and the Beirut Stock Exchange to slump.
A constitution imposed by the French in 1926 is one of the main stumbling blocks to Lebanon’s unity. It requires that the most powerful office in the land, that of president, must be held by a Maronite Christian (former allies of the French) while the prime minister must be a Sunni Muslim and the speaker a Shiite. The constitution has been overhauled over the years but this splitting of power based on sectarianism remains.
It’s clear that the constitution doesn’t work. It was designed for another time; another age. 21th century challenges demand a system of government that ensures top positions are held by persons best qualified for office, not individuals whose support rests on neotribal or religious loyalties.
In this instance, the waters are further muddied by Lebanon’s neighbors and foreign powers who believe they have a right to endorse or refuse Lebanon’s new president when it’s really none of their business. On Sunday Hezbollah’s second-in-command Sheikh Naim Qassem accused Washington of blocking the selection process by openly rejecting Hezbollah’s preferred presidential candidate, leader of the Free Patriotic Movement Michel Aoun. The March 14th bloc is similarly concerned about interference from Iran and Syria.
Hezbollah has further made its support for a presidential candidate conditional on his willingness to support the group’s struggle against Israel in answer to US demands for the new president’s commitment to disarming Hezbollah.
And so there is an impasse and as each day passes the cloud of gloom and doom hanging over the country darkens. Despite the outgoing president declaring a state of emergency and handing over security to the army, for the time being the country’s fragile democracy is holding up although there are reports that people are stocking up on weapons with which to protect themselves in case violence erupts.
If, heaven forbid, the situation degenerates into a state of civil war, it is likely to be even worse than the previous 15-year-long conflict. This time around, Christian, Muslim and Druze communities are split; a division reflected even among families.
Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir, who has submitted his own list of compromise presidential candidates, calls the situation “critical” and urges politicians to set aside their differences for the sake of the country.
“Everyone, especially decision-makers and those with responsibilities, must prove that they have seriousness and true nationalism,” he said. His is a sane voice in a sea of self-interested bickering.
What use are politicians who are unable to snatch their nation from the brink of bloodshed? What good are leaders if they can’t protect their own people? To paraphrase Dr. Phil once more, the question is not over who’s right or wrong but whether stubbornly sticking to a particular stance is working for you.
To avert a disaster, surely all Lebanese leaders need to sit around a table to appoint an interim, caretaker president — someone who can run the day-to-day demands of government but who is not necessarily empowered to make strategic, long-term decisions. The country desperately needs heroes, not egomaniacs.
But in the long run, what’s needed is a new constitution drafted to suit Lebanon’s 21st century needs — a constitution that would facilitate unity rather than division.
Lastly, the Lebanese need to join ranks to keep out foreign influence, which has proved, and is proving, so destructive.
This isn’t brain surgery. It’s mere common sense. The Lebanese are some of the cleverest, most highly educated and sophisticated people in the world. And Lebanon does not have the excuse of being some Third-World impoverished backwater. Theirs is a miniparadise with incredible potential as we witnessed in the 1960s and, again, at the turn of this century following the Israel pullout from South Lebanon and the exodus of Syrian troops.
Today, the fate of Lebanon is in the hands of the Lebanese. Ministers and leaders of opposition groups should wrap themselves in the cedar standard and step up to the plate. The alternative is too awful to contemplate.
