Tweet
LEBANON - AL METN'S REAL REVELATIONS!
By Ramzi E. Khoury
Arabisto.com, FL
http://www.arabisto.com/p_blogEntry.cfm?blogEnt ryID=719
Aug 7 2007
Kuala Lumpur
Lebanon's scorching hot fight over the Metn parliamentary seat
vacated through the murder of Pierre Jumayel was declared by both the
"majority" and the "minority" alliances as a war over who represents
the Christians of Lebanon.
According to both sides, who represents the Christians is who should be
the next president of the country; therefore they both declared victory
in the Metn fight despite the results. The stench of the smut delivered
throughout the campaigns by both sides endures even after the fight is
over and both leaders lowered the tones of their high pitched voices.
In truth, who should be the next president is a question that ought to
be answered at Parliament when the next session is launched starting
the 25th of September, not in Metn. But what al Metn answered is
another important question: is there an overall leader of Christians
in Lebanon?
Nope was the answer. Neither side proved that they own the mandate
despite the all-out war braved by both sides and their allies. A
margin of 418 out of 80,000 votes is not much of a mandate for either
side. Michel Aun who had managed to sweep votes across the nation
in 2005 was deluded by that victory which came before he made a pact
with Hizbollah and joined its alliance in 2006 and for sure at a time
when the public saw in him an "anti-Syrian" symbol of independence,
a perception wiped off by the pact!
Upon his victory, Aun declared that it is obvious he needs to clarify
the pact to the Christian public that does not fully understand it. A
good discovery on his part but not a good justification for why he
is not the one and only leader of Christians in Lebanon today. He
never was. Another good discovery would be to recognize that his
"victory" was saved by the Armenian Tashnaq party, a historic ally of
the Jumayels, which had defected to his side for their own political
interests. Aun's leadership is all about political alliances, rather
than religious representation; not a bad thing in a democracy. Aun
should therefore drop his futile attempt to be the leader of Christians
and work more on his image as a nonsectarian which creates promise
and hope.
The secondary elections in the Christian district did establish the
primary state of affairs amongst the Christian community. Amin Jumayel,
for one, should consider his "victory" a clear message that he should
just quit politics altogether.
This man personally ran for the seat of his own recently slain son,
happens to be the current higher leader of the Phalangist Party,
an Ex-President, brother of an assassinated Ex-President and son
of a historic Lebanese founding leader, yet he lost to a political
un-known who seemed to have dropped from no-where: Kamil Khoury.
Funny enough, Jumayel also had the full backing of the supposed
"powerful party," the Lebanese Forces of Samir Jaajaa, and other groups
including the Druze led by Walid Junblat. Even that didn't help him.
The results of the elections will be used by Jaajaa and his party as a
tool to establish that the Jumayels are out of business and therefore
the Christians should rally behind his radical Christian party;
infamous for its bloody past. Optimistically, the results that show
discontent with the Christian historic leadership including Jaajaa
could also be an opportunity to see new Christian leaders emerge
who can grab the imagination of the public by talking national unity
rather than sectarianism.
By all means, whereas the Shiites are vastly united in one front,
the Sunnis in the other, Al Metn elections show how the Christians of
Lebanon are divided in the middle between the two sides. Many of the
Maronites, the majority of Lebanese Christians, chose to vote against
the hopes of their Patriarch who supported Jumayel. The results are
a clear statement that the "religious mandate" of the Patriarch who
has historically played a major role in national politics no longer
calls the shots within the Christian community; at least not in any
divisive manner.
Meanwhile, there is a huge difference between the theoretical notion of
"who should be President of Lebanon" and the practical that does not
rely on emotional values created through a local vote, but rather on
the solid dictates of the Constitution.
The President, despite the fact that he must be a Maronite Christian by
law, is the President of the whole of Lebanon in all of its religious
and ethnic diversity. Why? Because under the Constitution he is elected
by a Parliament that represents that diversity; not directly by the
Christian community itself.
Therefore, in practical terms, the Metn elections could not have
decided who will be President and for as long as Parliament is divided
and no side has a two-thirds-majority capable of electing a President
by law, we may not get to see a President elected any time soon.
What Al Metn did establish, however, is that there is no Super
Christian leader in Lebanon and that the Christians in either alliance
have no choice but to resort to dialogue as a tool towards a resolution
of the national stalemate.
The fact that the Christians are the divided party between the two
adversary alliances also means they are the solid common ground between
them. This situation poses an opportunity for them to be the main
players in a project that can produce a resolution because neither
alliance can survive the stalemate without its Christian element.
The Christians, in their current weakness, are the trump card that
is hanging over the heads of both sides; only if they can conduct a
dialogue amongst themselves that leads to an amicable agreement.
Those who have practically lost the historic leadership of the country
through disunity now have an opportunity to snap the country out
of the futile status quo that awaits an imported "solution." Such a
foreign "solution" would be crafted by powers toying with the future of
Lebanon on count of their own national interests with utter disregard
for Lebanon, its people and their collective national aspirations.
The Christian leaders on both sides should look at the 25th of
September launch of the next Parliamentary session as a deadline
for reconciliation; the only way they can be leading players again
in a Lebanon where the nation has become a ball kicked around in a
playground refereed by unfair foreign powers.
By Ramzi E. Khoury
Arabisto.com, FL
http://www.arabisto.com/p_blogEntry.cfm?blogEnt ryID=719
Aug 7 2007
Kuala Lumpur
Lebanon's scorching hot fight over the Metn parliamentary seat
vacated through the murder of Pierre Jumayel was declared by both the
"majority" and the "minority" alliances as a war over who represents
the Christians of Lebanon.
According to both sides, who represents the Christians is who should be
the next president of the country; therefore they both declared victory
in the Metn fight despite the results. The stench of the smut delivered
throughout the campaigns by both sides endures even after the fight is
over and both leaders lowered the tones of their high pitched voices.
In truth, who should be the next president is a question that ought to
be answered at Parliament when the next session is launched starting
the 25th of September, not in Metn. But what al Metn answered is
another important question: is there an overall leader of Christians
in Lebanon?
Nope was the answer. Neither side proved that they own the mandate
despite the all-out war braved by both sides and their allies. A
margin of 418 out of 80,000 votes is not much of a mandate for either
side. Michel Aun who had managed to sweep votes across the nation
in 2005 was deluded by that victory which came before he made a pact
with Hizbollah and joined its alliance in 2006 and for sure at a time
when the public saw in him an "anti-Syrian" symbol of independence,
a perception wiped off by the pact!
Upon his victory, Aun declared that it is obvious he needs to clarify
the pact to the Christian public that does not fully understand it. A
good discovery on his part but not a good justification for why he
is not the one and only leader of Christians in Lebanon today. He
never was. Another good discovery would be to recognize that his
"victory" was saved by the Armenian Tashnaq party, a historic ally of
the Jumayels, which had defected to his side for their own political
interests. Aun's leadership is all about political alliances, rather
than religious representation; not a bad thing in a democracy. Aun
should therefore drop his futile attempt to be the leader of Christians
and work more on his image as a nonsectarian which creates promise
and hope.
The secondary elections in the Christian district did establish the
primary state of affairs amongst the Christian community. Amin Jumayel,
for one, should consider his "victory" a clear message that he should
just quit politics altogether.
This man personally ran for the seat of his own recently slain son,
happens to be the current higher leader of the Phalangist Party,
an Ex-President, brother of an assassinated Ex-President and son
of a historic Lebanese founding leader, yet he lost to a political
un-known who seemed to have dropped from no-where: Kamil Khoury.
Funny enough, Jumayel also had the full backing of the supposed
"powerful party," the Lebanese Forces of Samir Jaajaa, and other groups
including the Druze led by Walid Junblat. Even that didn't help him.
The results of the elections will be used by Jaajaa and his party as a
tool to establish that the Jumayels are out of business and therefore
the Christians should rally behind his radical Christian party;
infamous for its bloody past. Optimistically, the results that show
discontent with the Christian historic leadership including Jaajaa
could also be an opportunity to see new Christian leaders emerge
who can grab the imagination of the public by talking national unity
rather than sectarianism.
By all means, whereas the Shiites are vastly united in one front,
the Sunnis in the other, Al Metn elections show how the Christians of
Lebanon are divided in the middle between the two sides. Many of the
Maronites, the majority of Lebanese Christians, chose to vote against
the hopes of their Patriarch who supported Jumayel. The results are
a clear statement that the "religious mandate" of the Patriarch who
has historically played a major role in national politics no longer
calls the shots within the Christian community; at least not in any
divisive manner.
Meanwhile, there is a huge difference between the theoretical notion of
"who should be President of Lebanon" and the practical that does not
rely on emotional values created through a local vote, but rather on
the solid dictates of the Constitution.
The President, despite the fact that he must be a Maronite Christian by
law, is the President of the whole of Lebanon in all of its religious
and ethnic diversity. Why? Because under the Constitution he is elected
by a Parliament that represents that diversity; not directly by the
Christian community itself.
Therefore, in practical terms, the Metn elections could not have
decided who will be President and for as long as Parliament is divided
and no side has a two-thirds-majority capable of electing a President
by law, we may not get to see a President elected any time soon.
What Al Metn did establish, however, is that there is no Super
Christian leader in Lebanon and that the Christians in either alliance
have no choice but to resort to dialogue as a tool towards a resolution
of the national stalemate.
The fact that the Christians are the divided party between the two
adversary alliances also means they are the solid common ground between
them. This situation poses an opportunity for them to be the main
players in a project that can produce a resolution because neither
alliance can survive the stalemate without its Christian element.
The Christians, in their current weakness, are the trump card that
is hanging over the heads of both sides; only if they can conduct a
dialogue amongst themselves that leads to an amicable agreement.
Those who have practically lost the historic leadership of the country
through disunity now have an opportunity to snap the country out
of the futile status quo that awaits an imported "solution." Such a
foreign "solution" would be crafted by powers toying with the future of
Lebanon on count of their own national interests with utter disregard
for Lebanon, its people and their collective national aspirations.
The Christian leaders on both sides should look at the 25th of
September launch of the next Parliamentary session as a deadline
for reconciliation; the only way they can be leading players again
in a Lebanon where the nation has become a ball kicked around in a
playground refereed by unfair foreign powers.