“The President of the Republic is the head of the state and the symbol of the nation's unity. He shall safeguard the constitution and Lebanon's independence, unity and territorial Integrity.” - Article 49 of The Lebanese Constitution
For those of who may not know it, my home country of Lebanon did not have a president for over two years, until last Monday when our Parliament elected the retired General Michel Aoun as the head of the state. That means that during the almost two-and-a-half years, there was no one to embody, both at home and abroad, the unity, indivisibility and sovereignty of an already weak and extremely divided country.
How did we reach that point of institutional absurdity in Lebanon? Why aren’t we able, like most parliamentary regimes in the world, to have normal elections where representatives gather together and elect the president? And what exactly happened these past few weeks for Michel Aoun, a veteran of the Lebanese army and politics, to be elected president?
Those who are not familiar with Lebanon and Lebanese politics need to understand that this is a very peculiar country, perhaps one of the most peculiar the body of nations has ever produced.
Lebanon’s demographics is made up of 18 officially recognized religious sects that each have their own history within the country and the wider region. For the purpose of this essay, I will divide them into four groups: Christians, who make up roughly 40.5 percent of the population, Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims, who each make up roughly 27 percent of the population, and Druzes, members a particular religion that originates from Ismaili Shiism but is not generally considered part of Islam, who make up 5.6 percent of the population.
In order to articulate the different interests of these religious groups, the Lebanese regime is based on the National Pact, a non-written agreement that distributes the different positions in the Lebanese government based on the demographic weight of each religious group, or at least supposedly. Therefore, while the President must be a Christian Maronite, the Prime Minister must be a Sunni Muslim and the Speaker of the House of Deputies a Shia Muslim. In addition, both the Cabinet of the Prime Minister and the House of Deputies have to be divided equally between Christians and Muslims.
Prior to the end of former President Michel Suleiman’s mandate, Lebanese politics could be described as such:
On one hand, the March 8 coalition. It was mainly made of Shia political parties Hezbollah and Amal, as well as the Christian Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), the party of President Aoun. The United States considers Hezbollah a terrorist group for its hostile activities against Israel and US interests. Hezbollah, a proxy of Iran in Lebanon, is the only militia that did not give up its weapon at the end of the Lebanese Civil War in 1991, and today is very actively involved in the war in Syria along with the Assad regime. Iran and Syria were therefore the main international backers of the March 8 coalition.
On the other hand, the March 14 coalition. It was mainly made of the Sunni Future Movement, presided by Saad Hariri, as well his Christian allies. This coalition advocated for Hezbollah to give back its weapons and not intervene in—and later retreat from—Syria. The main international backers of this coalition were Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, as well as Western powers, mainly France and the United States.
Therefore, Lebanon was, and still is, entangled in the Saudi Arabian-Iranian “cold war” in the Middle East, as well as the decade-long hostility between Iran and the West.
When time came to elect a new president in April 2014, no candidate obtained a majority, and Hezbollah and the FPM subsequently boycotted all parliamentary sessions to elect a new president, which every single time prevented the quorum from being reached and the election to take place. Officially, it was because they believed that Aoun should be the president, being the “strongman of the Christians.” In reality, however, Hezbollah did not care too much about the presidency, but wanted to end its boycott and have Aoun elected in exchange for a “package-deal” that would increase the institutional power of the Shias, legitimize Hezbollah’s weapons and tolerate its intervention in Syria. A new deal was also believed to be highly dependent upon the state of Iranian-Saudi relations.
Hariri long resisted the temptation to support Aoun, Hezbollah’s main man, in order to save the constitutional viability of the Lebanese Republic, because that would equal to a surrender.
But a tremendously weakened Hariri finally resigned to support Aoun last week. In fact, Hariri’s popularity among Sunnis has been decreasing because many feel that he is too distant from them and does not protect them against Iranian imperialism. However, what finally drove Hariri to support Aoun last week was the financial difficulties of his real estate company in Saudi Arabia, the backbone of his wealth and therefore political power. It must be noted though that Hezbollah’s victory is not total. In fact, by declaring their support for Aoun, Hariri and his Christian allies forced Hezbollah to unveil its hypocrisy and have Aoun elected without getting any “package-deal.” In addition, in exchange for his support for Aoun, Hariri will be the next Prime Minister.
I am very happy that Lebanon finally has a president. I think it is a historical day, one that best symbolizes our country’s resilience in the face of both the wars that wreck havoc neighboring countries and a refugee crisis that has led Syrian refugees to make up 1/5 of the population of Lebanon. Time and again the Lebanese people have proven that they have learnt the lessons of their bloody civil war (1975-1990) by putting peace and stability above their particularistic interests.
But I have no illusions about the future of the country. Political conflicts and deadlocks will now turn to the formation of a new government and the crafting of a new electoral law, under the scrutiny of Hezbollah and Amal who will make sure that they get their “package-deal.”
Above all, I have lost all illusions about the possibility to turn Lebanon into a modern, secular, fully democratic and sovereign state. I have come to understand that our political system is corrupt, rotten and sectarian not merely because of the ruling class, but because of the Lebanese people themselves, of whom the ruling class is only the mirror. Lebanon is not a nation-state in the Western meaning of the term, but is rather a collection of religious communities whose proper identities are very strong and rooted in history. For example, whereas Sunni Muslims have always tended to relate to the wider Arab and Islamic world, many Maronite Christians have always cherished Lebanon as a safe haven free from oppression by Islamic governments. Until today, many Christians don’t even identify as Arabs.
In the midst of such a mosaic of identities, it remains difficult to determine on what grounds to base the Lebanese nation, other than on constant compromises between the different groups, which inevitably lead to sectarianism, political deadlocks and foreign interferences.
But despite my disillusions, I will always answer my country’s desperate calls to help, because I am deeply in love with Lebanon. Perhaps I could best help my country by getting involved with the very active civil society and defend urgent causes such as the protection of the environment or the architectural and archeological heritage of the country.
Emile Riachi is a Trinity sophomore. His column, "a political night vision," runs on alternate Thursdays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.