Lebanon Towards Neo Shihabism!
By Dr Salim Nazzal
08 December, 2007
Countercurrents.orgThe Lebanese citizens who last week hang the picture of general Michel Suleiman in his northern town Amshit were certainly not only reflecting their joy and hope about the possibility that the son of their town being next president who resides the Baabda palace, but also, reflecting a wider relief and optimism in the whole country after a year of standoff. As known, the circulated names of the candidates for the presidency have been so numerous that it reminds me of the Lebanese humor that any Maronite (since the presidency is exclusive to this sect) thinks he could stand for the presidency. However, among the all names which have been circulated as serious candidates for the presidency, the commander of the army general Suleiman is widely believed to be the most likely to succeed president LaHood. The reason behind this political support both on the 8th and 14th of March camps is due to his role in keeping the army away from the current conflict. Also, his positive role towards the Lebanese resistance. And even more importantly he fits the general mood in the country for a strong president of the shehapist style. More over general Suleiman does not belong to what they call in Syria (the hate culture) group, since he is known for his balanced position towards Syria. This traditionally influences the politics of Lebanon.
Many observers in Beirut compared general Suleiman and general Shehab in the late fifties. Fouad Shehab the army commander at the time of the civil strife in 1958, took a neutral position in the inter Lebanese conflict which took place between the pro Pan Arab forces and president Camille Chamoun who was known for his closed ties with the USA and Britain . It is also known that Shehab was tired of the (lane politics) as it is called in Lebanon which refers to the small political games. This is the reason, in the view of his supporters which made him tough on the politicians through using Le Dexume Bureau (the Lebanese intelligence service) against them. Yet this policy made him a target of critique by some politicians who accused him of constructing a police state in the country. However Shehab is well remembered in the Lebanese history as a major nationalist figure that restored the unity of Lebanon. And as the president who introduced a package of political reform, despite the fact that his reform did not touch the essence of the sectarian nature of the Lebanese political system.
Unquestionably, as many observers pointed out, the public opinion in Lebanon is strongly united these days around the hope to see the Baabda palace occupied by a president because the vacuum of presidency and the unknown future is what worry most the Lebanese. This might explain the strong emphasis of the various parties that civil strife is a red line despite the rumors that some pro government parties are smuggling arms into the country. However the late initiative of general Aoun about reaching a full package which would include the president and the formation of the future government before assembling the Lebanese council of representatives to elect the new president has not been welcomed by the pro government alliance that said its major focus is on the president first, the rest be focused on later. Despite the support which Aoun shows to Suleiman, his sources say that a hasty agreement on filling the presidency vacuum, without dealing with all the problems would lead to the continuation of the crisis? Yet most observers down play these differences assuming that since the major obstacle is almost solved and the crisis is almost over.
However, if one attempt to come with some calculations regarding the current crisis with the aim to find out the similarities and the differences among the Lebanese parties, one would come with the following points. Firstly, the Lebanese parties are aware of the dangers which lie ahead if a political agreement is not reached. Secondly, all political parties though of various sincerity acknowledge the importance of reaching the best relationship with Syria. But with additional rhetoric from the pro government side on the mutual and balanced relation which stress the Lebanese independence and sovereignty. Thirdly, all parties reject resettling Palestinians and thus stressing the importance of the right of return to Palestine. This matter was pointed to in the Lebanese constitution in Al Taef, 1889. Fourthly, there is an agreement that Lebanon is a final home country and thus, cannot go in unity with other countries (which is mentioned in the Taef constitution too). And lastly, all Lebanese parties view theoretically at least, that Israel is an enemy to Lebanon. However the last point seems to be the most problematic as it decides the future role of Lebanon in the Arab Israeli conflict. While the opposition is focusing on the importance of the resistance which has defended Lebanon in the face of the Israeli invasions, the pro government does not share this view which makes this point the most difficult point among the two alliances.
Would a Neo Shihabism save Lebanon, and if so, would it be a copy of the first Shihabism or a renewed one? This is a question that is difficult to answer. However despite the similarity in the nature of the conflict in Shehab times (both in the domestic and the regional) copying a past experience is not easy matter because even in the existing of similarities in both periods political leaders need to have visions to address the future. Shehab succeeded in finding a balanced equation in keeping Lebanon away from the pro American alliance and at the same time compromised with the pro Arab forces in Lebanon but without going further towards joining the Arab republic of Egypt and Syria as the Pan Arab lebanese demanded that time. The question is what General Suleiman who is expected to be elected next week will be doing to keep the unity of Lebanon and to maintain its role as an independent and integrated country in an explosive region. This is perhaps the first question that he needs to answer.
Dr. Salim Nazzal is a Palestinian-Norwegian historian in the Middle East, who has written extensively on social and political issues in the region. He can be contacted at: [email protected]
Leave A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Digg it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So, as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.
Syndicate CC Headlines On Your Blog
