| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
 Posted - 06/19/2005 : 03:27:07 AM
|
Many people are being drawn into short-term politics like the issue of whether Aoun is good or bad, WJ is good or bad, and so on.
I express faint belief that democratic change would come at the hands of current existing leaders.
At the same time WJ had been changing sides every two seconds, Aoun (after being sidelined by the FM, LF, Hizballah alliance) has allied himself with Michelle l'Morr and Irslein and so on - people who had previously been allied with the Baath regime in Syria.
The downside is of course having people like Murr and Birreh and Hariri and Jumblatt and Irslein and clan leaders and so on representing the lebanese in elections. Aoun could only obtain votes by allying himself with clan-leaders, which is the sad truth that votes in lebanon cannot be achieved unless they were obtained via secterian lines. So it's not a victory for democracy in my opinion; and Aoun, Jumblatt, Birreh, Hariri and Hizballah are all following the same secterian routes for obtaining votes in elections. Otherwise they wouldn't have won. What would happen if Aoun came up with his own list of independent candidates. Would they win? I personally don't think so.
So I think not much has changed; the change should come at the level of the public and the mentality of the people in lebanon. That's where the change should come by democratising the lebanese public, and not at the hands of the tribal political "elite"
"كنت أفضل لو كانت المقاومة وطنية شاملة وليست شيعية صرفاً"
السيد محمد حسن الأمين |
Edited by - Bullocks on 06/19/2005 03:29:32 AM |
|
|
Rabih Lubnan
12 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2005 : 1:24:45 PM
|
I agree with you Bullocks, that all the clan leaders without exception represent a downside of Lebanese politics. That's why in my article I emphasized the elections in Jbeil (not Metn or elsewhere) as a model of wiping clean the slate of the establishment and bringing about new faces many of which participated in the March 14 revolution.
This is something we did not see before in free elections in Lebanon. It is a model that needs careful studying and development beyond the immediate implication of these elections’ results.
Was it Aoun the main factor? or not? Was it the volunteers of his FPM the main factor? or not? was there a hidden factor that we were unaware of? or not?
This is something we did not see with the Hariri movement who despite the outpouring of popular support to them on March 14, 2005 and despite the unlimited amount of money available for their campaign (and I do not necessarily mean to bribe voters), they felt it was necessary to run an exclusive campaign that marginalized and closed the door for their political adversaries but also for new aspiring servants and heroes of March 14, 2005. As if their whole campaign took a turn to the worst when they silenced Bahia, forced her into a list with Amal and Hezbollah (staunch allies of Syria) and began their attack on Aoun before he had even returned. In my opinion, I am free to consider that the 72% of Beirutis, and the 57% of Southerners and the large majority of Lebanese understood that and did not give the Hariri-Jumblat-Amal-Hezbollah their vote, did not endorse their agenda and do not approve of their politics.
Forgive my naïveté, but am I not to fear this alliance and see it as suspicious when their movement along with WJ, with Amal, with Hezbollah have always pushed Syrian policies in Lebanon up to September 2004. Now all of a sudden they made a 180 degrees turn!!! Surprising a bit eh!!! (Maybe Hariri was genuine if he believed that Syria killed his father! But what about the rest? Am I not free to believe that they simply wanted to contain the anti-Syrian sentiment and movement and channel it in pro-Syrian (anti-Lebanese) policies?
When Bahia said “No Thanks to Syria but goodbye Syria” on March 14, she was marginalized by the Hariri-WJ camp and their new ally became Hezbollah and Amal.
When GMA decided to return to Lebanon, WJ described his return as a Tsunami; none of the Bristol “patriots” were there to greet him. The future TV did not cover his return, as if nothing was happening. Wasn’t that a bit strange?
Let me tell you this in the interest of full disclosure, as someone who voluntarily participated in the anti-Syrian demonstrations in 1989 to the People’s House in Baabda (before there was even an FPM), as someone who cried from the heart at the assassination of Rafic Hariri, as someone who supported with all his heart and soul the March 14, 2005 demonstration, let me tell you that what Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblat did to me was a blow to my national aspirations not unlike that dealt by the Syrian occupation. They used me to fuel their electoral campaign to crush their political opponents; they used my love for country, my patriotism and my dedication to promote what turned out to be sectarian slogans in an election campaign. I, as a demonstrator, never authorized them to make deals with Amal and Hezbollah, the two main groups behind the March 8 pro-Syrian rally without explaining to me why; I felt violated and I punished them everywhere I could.
I do not see Michel Murr or Slayman Frangieh or Talal Erslan as more pro-Syrian than Walid Jumblat or Hassan Nasrallah or Nabih Berri (with his famous speeches over 15 years). In fact I was hoping the March 14, 2005 movement would try Nabih Berri and Emile Lahoud for high treason; but Walid Jumblat showed that he can only flex his muscles against the Christians in Lebanon but will buckle to any Shiite or Sunni Muslim in Lebanon or elsewhere regardless of policy (I heard demand the departure of Lahoud but I saw him make deals with Nabih Berri). In the absence of a clear national agenda for BAHA, I felt I could only go with the lesser of the two evils, the one I trust, the constant who does not change. After all, this is where a majority of free-thinking Lebanese were and this is where they voted against all odds.
The elections are now behind us and time is upon us to work for the future, to learn from this experience and make our choices wisely. With open arms I extend a hand of cooperation to every Lebanese based on clear and declared principles. I advocate non-violence; I fight with my words, the only weapon passed down to me by my Phoenician ancestors, for a secular Lebanon, based on equality and civil rights for all its citizens.
For these reasons I joined the Democracy in Lebanon movement and I invite you to put your hand in mine;
Rabih Lubnan, author of the article “The Secular Dimension of the General’s victory”. |
 |
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2005 : 5:34:40 PM
|
You can't compare what tribal leaders do for their factions to snatch as much power as they can for their own sect, and also to their own personal benefit.
In other words, you can't compare Michelle Murr and Frangieh with Birreh and Nasrallah with respect to whom you think tends to be more or less pro-syrian. These are clan leaders doing what would be in their clan's interest; they're not concerned about the presence or absence of syria.
Each of the March 8 and March 14 demonstrations comprised half of the Lebanese population (I think the March 14 was bigger, but the March 8 was also a significant number). After all, the hizballah supporters are doing what they think would be in their sect's interest; and so are the amal supporters - just like everyone else amongst the Sunneh supporters, the LF supporters, the PSP supporters and so on.
What I'm suggesting is none of what happened makes any difference. Whether Aoun or the BAHA list wins, we'd still be stuck in the same problem that we've always faced in lebanon. The fact that lebanon is comprised of the persecuted minorities in the middle East, each striving to survive under their own terms. Who is left to think of Lebanon? You might be misguided to think that Aoun's short-term vision is aimed at secularising Lebanon, but I'm not convinced. Aoun has allied himself with Murr and Frangieh, who themselves have made a 180 degree turn.
My question is why are these clan leaders fixed in their positions? the likes of Birreh, 7ariri, WJ, Nasrallah, Frangieh, Murr and so on. As for Aoun, his vision contradicts itself. How is he planning to secularise Lebanon when his own list had gained support from voters thinking along the secterian lines; i.e. he had to ally himself clan leaders - otherwise he wouldn't have won.
As for 7ariri and Jumblatt and Birreh and nasrallah, well they are clan leaders themselves.
So I would like to ask you what the answer is to this whole fiasco? I didn't follow the news today, I don't know who won in the North elections because it simply won't make any difference to the thing that matters the most to me, which is Lebanon. And believe me I didn't shed a single tear when 7ariri died, but when I saw those people on the street on March 14 then I couldn't restrain myself. And that didn't last for long at all. Because genuine reconciliation has never taken place. And the Christian and the Muslim and the Durzi in Lebanon are still not part of the same country, they're not the same blood. And if you would like to fix things, then fix the public so they would truly become reconciled for the first time. We saw that briefly during the March 14 demonstration; but that was a fake reconciliation that played along secterian lines and played into the hands of clan leaders. Bil ikhir, kil wa7ad ra7 neim bi khaymit tayifto.
Short-term politics doesn't change a thing - and if I was in Lebanon, I wouldn't vote for anyone because currently no one is representing me - as a Lebanese citizen; and no one is working for the well being of our so-called nation. Because the Lebanese nation has not been established yet. And that's what should be the first goal on the agenda.
"كنت أفضل لو كانت المقاومة وطنية شاملة وليست شيعية صرفاً"
السيد محمد حسن الأمين |
|
|
|
Rabih Lubnan
12 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2005 : 7:06:32 PM
|
The comparison I drew between the different clans vis-à-vis their position from Syria was simply to explain my disdain of the Hariri-Jumblat politics who pitched an anti-Syrian policy since Febraury 14, 2005 based upon which they sorted friend and foe, only to find themselves courting those who orchestrated the biggest pro-Syrian rally in the history of Lebanon. How come some of the Riad Solh demonstrations are acceptable as Lebanese and some are not? Why is Frangieh and Murr not acceptable but Berri and Hezbollah are? After all wasn’t Hassan Nasrallah who misled all of them to Riad El-Solh? I am playing devil’s advocate here because really don’t care for anyone of them. But I guess I as many other innocent and genuine patriots who demonstrated on March 14, 2005, may suffer from a problem called in politics “true believerism”. We believed WJ and by March 14, 2005 I was advocating with my friends Jumblat’s election, by popular acclamation, to leader interim of a transitional Lebanese republic, that would oversee liberation, disarmament of all groups outside the Lebanese army and political reform. He did not have it in him. He was either faking it and never believed in the people or he was simply too chicken to try and preferred to resort to the old sectarian establishment under the fig leaf of the Taif accord. Either way he failed me, he failed us, once again and I reserve the right to discount him from my options.
By contrast Aoun was the only constant on the only issue raised by the Hariri-Jumblat campaign: ending the Syrian domination. So why vote for the imitation when you can vote for the original, after all this is what the issue was about in Mount-Lebanon.
I did not agree with Rafic Hariri on most of his politics. I opposed him many times too. But I felt terribly violated when he was assassinated… and yes I cried for him, for he was a man of peace and a true Lebanese.
So what is the answer?
Obviously the answer has to come from within the institutions and through a democratic process. The elections have engendered a political majority and a political minority in Parliament. We have to live with that for the next session and push for as many reforms as we can, beginning with the election law. We have also to organize independently of these two groups and prepare for the next round of elections. True and lasting reforms come gradually and not over short-term. I agree with you short-term politics lead only to short-term solutions.
So let’s work together and prepare for tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2005 : 08:18:07 AM
|
Thanks for taking the time to elaborate on your opinion.
However, what I don't understand is why you were that shocked about WJ's politics. This is a man who has never followed a straight line in politics, I don't understand how you were so drawn into his political campaign, I never believed in him in the first place. And to be fair, that also applies to everyone from 7ariri to Birreh to Morr etc.
What I also don't understand is your belief in Aoun being a constant or an original. This is a man who has been calling for a project to secularise Lebanon, while at the same time he allied himself with clan-leaders, which contributed to a large number of seats won. So at the same time he was claiming to secularise Lebanon, he won most of his seats along the secterian lines.
What I'm trying to draw your attention to is that I personally do not support either of them. I even don't think short-term politics would solve any of our problems. If I was made to vote in Lebanon, I would vote white because no one is currently representing Lebanon as a whole.
As for the solution, I will ask you a simple question - do you think that the public in lebanon is reconciled? And if you wanted to patch things up, don't you think that if you support WJ or 7ariri or Aoun, that it would alienate you from a large number of Lebanese people. Why is it that if you ask someone from the South about dismantling Hizballah, you'll get 19 out of 20 answers strongly opposed, and in Mount Lebanon you get 19 out of 20 strongly supportive of the idea? There is a huge segregation in the Lebanese society along confessionalist lines which is fueling this huge gap in Lebanese politics. You have opinions comprising the whole political spectrum from those who believe in "Death to America" and "the imperialist West" to those who believe that Bush is the "Saviour of Democracy". That's what the problem is - is anyone asking the question on what the Lebanese national interest is?
We should begin with sorting out the internal problems of our society until I would truly be convinced that the Lebanese Christian, Druze and Muslim are part of the same society, because currently they're far from it. And the attitude of "double-think" or trying to make excuses for one's own sect governs our mentality. Otherwise explain to me why the majority of the Muslim South is opposed to Aoun, while the majority of the Christian Mount is supportive of Aoun. This is the sad truth, and we have to admit to it to be able to deal with the problem.
"كنت أفضل لو كانت المقاومة وطنية شاملة وليست شيعية صرفاً"
السيد محمد حسن الأمين |
|
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
|
|
Jean
Lebanon
50 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2005 : 11:35:22 AM
|
| I guess now we moved from the Baath "one party' rule to the Hariri "one party" rule and their spokesperson Walid Jumblat. |
|
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
|
|
Jean
Lebanon
50 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2005 : 5:41:52 PM
|
Is it sectarian thinking of me to say that the Hariri bloc represents a one party bloc very similar to the baath. After all that is how they ran their campaign, excluding others and promoting pre-packaged deals in beirut and the bekaa and the south. Frankly, were it not for Michel Aoun, we would not have had any elections in Lebanon.
Plus it was the Hariri camp who used divisive religious tactics to discourage the Sunnis in the north from voting to the other list. Regardless of merit, asking sheikhs in mosques to describe Aoun's campaign as a threat to Islamic shar3i courts was overkill, discriminatory and hypocrit; the ultimate in sectarian politics and a tactic that pulled us far away from a secular goal. |
|
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
|
|
Jean
Lebanon
50 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2005 : 08:44:28 AM
|
I am not making any accusations. I was simply replying to your comment on my previous statement (where I compared the Hariri new order to the Baath old order), that it constitutes confessional thinking.
My friend, although my name reveals a particular religious affiliation (as most names in the Arab world), I do not come at this from a religious background. What I was hitting at was the sheer size of the Hariri coalition that sidelined and marginalized every one else, on purpose. It was not its religious identity (after all the Hariri bloc appears not to be uniformely religious, despite the high religiosity displayed by its leadership on Martyr's square) but did not refrain from using religious language to appeal to the Sunni voters.
In a small but diverse country like Lebanon, such big coalitions are detrimental to democracy. Is that it? The HAriri model? Jumblat = Druze leader; Hariri = Sunni Leader; Berri/Nasrallah = Shia leader; you may say Aoun = Christian leader; I disagree, perhaps the most tolerance to diversity today is in the Christian leadership if there is such a thing. Why? Christians in Lebanon according to the confessional Taif accord, have 64 seats in the majliss; how many does Aoun control? Less than 20.
Contrast that with the seats for Sunnis, Shia and Druze and tell me who controls those? Simple math. I do not wish to get to a structural conclusion based on this observation; but i think you have enough intelligence to deduce it on your own. |
|
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2005 : 12:34:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jean
I am not making any accusations. I was simply replying to your comment on my previous statement (where I compared the Hariri new order to the Baath old order), that it constitutes confessional thinking.
That analogy is erroneous, you're comparing a totalitarian regime to a secterian party.
quote:
Originally posted by Jean
My friend, although my name reveals a particular religious affiliation (as most names in the Arab world), I do not come at this from a religious background. What I was hitting at was the sheer size of the Hariri coalition that sidelined and marginalized every one else, on purpose. It was not its religious identity (after all the Hariri bloc appears not to be uniformely religious, despite the high religiosity displayed by its leadership on Martyr's square) but did not refrain from using religious language to appeal to the Sunni voters.
Of course they would, this is what all the mo7asasa and khaskhasit a siyeseh was all about. The Hariri bloc is not uniformly religious, it just comprises different sects with different leaders. It doesn't mean that the FM members support Jumblatt, or that the PSP members support Gaegae, or the LF members support hariri. It is an abnormal coalition claiming a fake reconciliation, I'm not saying otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by Jean
In a small but diverse country like Lebanon, such big coalitions are detrimental to democracy. Is that it? The HAriri model? Jumblat = Druze leader; Hariri = Sunni Leader; Berri/Nasrallah = Shia leader; you may say Aoun = Christian leader; I disagree, perhaps the most tolerance to diversity today is in the Christian leadership if there is such a thing. Why? Christians in Lebanon according to the confessional Taif accord, have 64 seats in the majliss; how many does Aoun control? Less than 20..
Contrast that with the seats for Sunnis, Shia and Druze and tell me who controls those? Simple math. I do not wish to get to a structural conclusion based on this observation; but i think you have enough intelligence to deduce it on your own.
You're discounting the votes that weren't the winning votes, and these did go to Aoun block. Don't forget that there are more muslims than Christians in the North. Let's suppose you were a Christian concerned about the Christian presence in Lebanon; would you then vote for Elias Atallah? (assuming that you didn't belong to the communist party or al yasar a democrati). The christian "leadership" that doesn't take into account the christian concerns (and I agree they are genuine concerns) is being voted in by muslims.
Regardless of what I said, you have missed the point of my post. You're arguing about things that I wouldn't like to get into. The fact that you would never vote someone from Hizballah or Amal, while someone from the South would most likely vote for them - this is representative of what the real problem is. You're not thinking in the same way / you're not reconciled. And as long as you're not reconciled, then you're not part of the same country. And until both of you begin to try and understand one another's point of view, we're always going to be stuck in the same dilemma and we're always going to be played by foreign policies from Syria to Israel and to the US and the Arab governments.
"كنت أفضل لو كانت المقاومة وطنية شاملة وليست شيعية صرفاً"
السيد محمد حسن الأمين |
Edited by - Bullocks on 06/21/2005 12:38:19 PM |
|
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2005 : 4:21:36 PM
|
I agree with Bullocks. The change should come from the grassroots up. It has to start with educational and social programs, national camps for children, national playgrounds, desegregated schools, social programs that promote inter-confessional marriage. We do not have to wait for the public sector (government to get in), let's start putting together a plan, even though small, do some fundraising from the private sector to promote it and we'll see where it goes.
I foresee the grassroots up approach as the one most likely to succeed. For experience and history teach us that it would be difficult to effect a real change in the ruling class. They keep getting re-invented even by the so-called democracy. Good for them and tough for us. Whose fault is it? Some like to say foreign intervention and a few bad leaders here and there, some others blame Israel, it is fashionable and always safe. Now the new trend is to blame Syria and the security systems. Without discounting anyone’s role in our plight, I blame us! The people; especially the well-learned among us, those who have had a chance to travel outside Lebanon and explore new civilizations. Our mission ought to be one of outreach and education, of dissemination of a message of tolerance, human civil rights and equality; in whatever context, be it in a secular society or a religious one, it does not matter as long as we share common values and believe in a nation: Lebanon. |
|
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
|
|
Jean
Lebanon
50 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2005 : 09:53:24 AM
|
Fine. I like your ideas too; but knowing Lebanon and the Lebanese society, you will be faced with an establishment that will block your projects if they do not benefit from them.
The people in my Lebanon strike me by and large as immature politically; they will follow whatever their za3im tells them to do, they will attack you if they perceive you as a threat to their za3im.
I like what you propose but at this stage, reforms have to begin by a change in the political discourse at the level of the leadership. It would be difficult to make the herd listen if their kirraz is not the one talking. Again to give you an example, take Michel Aoun's speech, it is a very national, non-sectarian (even secular) and constructive speech, but it threatens many in the political and religious establishment, so it is enough for Hariri to alienate it and for walid jumblat to label it as christian extremist for a majority of moslems to disregard it.
People do not always listen to the voice of reason. they mostly listen to the voice of their masters. you must change the voice of the masters first and train the people using their master's voice to think independantly. Only then your efforts to reach out to the people may be successful. |
|
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2005 : 11:26:33 AM
|
the masters wouldn't be masters anymore if people stop promoting them as such. Fix the people, you fix the problem.
I appreciate your reluctance; it would mean brainwashing the whole lebanese society, which I agree would be extremely difficult. But believe it or not, the process has already begun. And I can't speak for other people, but people of our like (from all regions / religions) are beginning to hold meetings in lebanon. I can personally confirm that to you because I'm organising some of those meetings and prompting people to become active at the social level. At the same time, I know of other groups that are holding meetings in parallel.
What is required is a collaboration between all of these small groups under some sort of umbrella organisation that works at the social level until they grow in number and develop some political weight. L'matloob taw7eed l'johood before it gets too late.
No one can block you then because no one can block the will of society, it's never meant to be based on one man politics. In the end, they can assassinate one, two, three, ten, or even a 100 people - but they can never assassinate a reconciled mass of people (in the thousands) prompting other people to join in and help solve the Lebanese problem.
"كنت أفضل لو كانت المقاومة وطنية شاملة وليست شيعية صرفاً"
السيد محمد حسن الأمين |
Edited by - Bullocks on 06/22/2005 11:27:15 AM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Short-term politics
Forum Locked
