The sectarian Lebanon does not inspire Syria

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

When we examine the current Lebanese distribution about the coming legislative session, and we measure it with the criteria of politics, we will find a surreal unexplainable scene, because each one the Free Patriotic Movement and the Lebanese Phalanges party are standing on one bank, while on an opposite bank there are Hezbollah and Al Mustaqbal Movement. In view of the major issues which distinguish the strategic and the current titles of the political positioning, we will find in the furthest issue of the relevant identity and the concept of the national security that the Free Patriotic Movement is in the trench of solidarity with Hezbollah as a resisting party against the Israeli occupation and the risks of its aggression, it supports it and stands with it in its war against the terrorism in Syria, we will find also that in the current issue which is prepared as a title that summarizes the maturities “ the presidency” Hezbollah stands with the General Michael Aoun in his candidacy for the presidency, it shares with him the disrupting of the quorum of the election’s sessions before the understanding on the presidency. The understanding according to Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement means is the understanding on the General Aoun as a president, so as much as the Free Patriotic Movement bears the burdens of different accusations locally, regionally, and internationally because of its supportive attitude to Hezbollah, its resistance, and weapons to the extent of saying that the General Michael Aoun was about to become a president with a semi international regional Lebanese consensus except for his supportive attitude towards Hezbollah. And if at the end Aoun has lost the presidency it is because of this attitude towards Hezbollah. Hezbollah at the same time bears the burdens of its standing with the General Aoun, and the accusation of it of disrupting the presidential maturity, and thus disrupting the opportunities of many understandings that meet many of Hezbollah’s interests, including the negotiating opportunity for reaching to a president under a regional and international coverage that adopts the triplicity of the army, people, and resistance, towards making Hezbollah bearing the responsibility of the resulted paralysis of disrupting this maturity in solidarity with his allied candidate. Despite all of that the General Aoun is standing on the same bank with his political rival Samir Geagea, while Hezbollah is standing with his political rival Al Mostaqbal Movement in their approach for the legislative session which became an event that is washed by the Lebanese and the non Lebanese.

According to the simple mathematical equation, Aoun and Geagea are standing under the slogan of refusing the legislation during the absence of the Christian President, unless the items which the Christian politicians consider as Christian priorities are listed in the agenda of the session, in other words, Aoun and Geagea are beholding the participants in the session the responsibility of not meeting their demands and thus marginalizing the Christians,  specially by linking the clause demands with the absence of a President of the Republic, which implicitly suggests of accusing the others, for example, Hezbollah according to Aoun implicitly is responsible for disrupting the election of a president, while in fact the ratio of Hezbollah’s responsibility is driven  from the responsibility of Aoun for the disrupting, but in essence it is in favor of his nominating, while Geagea who is no longer a presidential candidate is still considering Aoun and his ally Hezbollah the reason of the disrupting the presidential maturity, he does not mind to have one coordinated attitude with Aoun towards boycotting the session of legislation, as if he says we will be united in solidarity with Aoun’ disrupting the maturity which leads to the absence of the President of the Republic, and because of him we agree on boycotting the legislative session in the absence of a president.

The mathematical simple question is if Aoun and Geagea have an understanding “Christianly “ on the presidential elections then there is no need for the disruption or any justification of their legislative conditions, and then they will succeed in preventing the marginalization which their parenthetical meeting suggests that the Muslim allies of each one of them are standing behind. So according to the speech of each one of them the absence on the President of the Republic constitutes the strongest form of marginalizing the Christians, and according to their speech the powerful Christian President has features that are found in the other, so away from accusing the others including their allies of not taking this into consideration why do not they translate what they consider as a national priority into an understanding on electing one of them  as a powerful Christian candidate, then their understanding will have absolutely an immediate support by the rest of the political components and the Christian church, so shortly he will be a consensus candidate, thus the choice of disruption and the “Christian” legislative conditions will fall.

According to the easiest simple equation of the Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri, when Aoun and Geagea agree on a common project for the election law, then it can be listed in the agenda of the legislative session, then the justification of boycotting “the Christian” considerations will fall,  their understanding is the shortest way to express what they consider as the interests of the Christians, and a prevention of marginalization since the law of the parliamentary elections is the key of representation and the abolishing of the marginalization, thus its non- listing in the agenda of the legislative session justifies the reason of their boycotting.

This is the inspiring Lebanese example which the UN Envoy Steffan De Mistura wanted to grant the lucks of its following for the Syrians in order not to have neither home, nor politics, nor logic, just the instincts are leading the politics, where the small considerations draw the big positions, and the sectarian present interests are bigger than the strategic national interests, moreover  the alliances under the title of unity of the community are  more important than the home even if its unity has been threatened.

Well done for the Syrians because they stick to their secular country and refused the lie of the Syrian Taif, maybe this adherence has passed the threshold of Vienna’s Conference and through which the coming gates will be passed, hoping the infection of Lebanon, which is in need for an inspiring example that helps the politics to emerge from marginalizing the major issues in favor of the small considerations.

It is the sectarianism; it is neither Aoun nor Geagea nor Hezbollah, nor Berri, nor Al Mostaqbal Movement, nor the presidency or the legislation. Lebanon is falling into garbage, while the Lebanese are fighting on the landfills on a sectarian basis.

The home of garbage is the home of sectarianism.