Tweet
CUP HALF FULL
Mideast Mirror
August 7, 2007 Tuesday
The main players may have all lost out, but the results of the weekend
Lebanese by-elections stand as testimony to Lebanon's democratic
traditions, says 'Urayb ar-Rintawi in today's Jordanian ad-Dustour
The weekend's Lebanese by-elections have left many losers in their
wake, claims a leading Jordanian commentator. Most of the political
participants in that game have emerged as losers, but Lebanon and
its democratic traditions have emerged as the main winners.
[The deadlocked struggle between the pro-U.S. government and
mainly Shiite opposition deepened yesterday (Monday) after a tense
parliamentary election showed a sharp divide among Christians, a
key swing bloc. That deadlock was reinforced when pro-government
candidate Amin Gemayel, a former president and the head of one
of Lebanon's most powerful Maronite Christian families, conceded
defeat by a mere 418 votes in Sunday's election in the Christian
stronghold of Metn north of Beirut. The victor was little-known
Kamil Khoury, who was backed by the most prominent Christian leader
in the pro-Syrian opposition, Michel Aoun. Khoury took 39,534 votes
to Gemayel's 39,116. Many fear the deepening stalemate may lead to
the formation of competing governments if it is not resolved before
the race to replace pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, whose term
ends Nov. 23. Under Lebanon's division of power among its sects,
the presidency must be held by a Maronite Christian chosen parliament.
Now, no Maronite leader can boost his bid among lawmakers by claiming
to represent the entire community. Gemayel's loss is a setback for
his potential as a candidate. Aoun has said he will stand for the
presidency. But the slimness of Kamil Khoury's victory Sunday damages
his patron Aoun's attempts to present himself as the top Christian
politician. Gemayel got more of the Maronite vote than his rival --
75 percent, according to press reports. But Aoun's candidate made up
for it by winning other Christians' votes. Gemayel supporters blamed
his loss on the large ethnic Armenian community in the Metn district
and said Kamil Khoury was not representative of the Maronites, who
form a majority in the district and are the largest Christian sect
in Lebanon. Armenians are largely Catholic or Orthodox Christian.
Another election Sunday was to replace lawmaker Walid Eido, a Sunni
Muslim who was killed in a June car bombing there. A pro-government
candidate, Mohammed al-Amin Itani, won that race easily.]
LOSERS ALL: "I cannot find one single winner in Lebanon's weekend
by-elections," writes 'Urayb ar-Rintawi in Tuesday's Amman daily
ad-Dustour.
They all seem to be losers! Losers! [Pro-government Maronite leader
of the Phalange Party and former president] Amin Gemayel seems to be
the greatest loser. He first inherited his parliamentary seat for the
Metn area from his uncle Maurice Gemayel in 1971. He then inherited
his brother [Bashir] as president after a powerful bomb killed him on
the threshold of Ba'abda Presidential Palace in 1982. But he failed
to inherit his own [assassinated] son, minister and MP Pierre Gemayel.
He failed despite the firm coalition between [Sunni Future Current
billionaire leader Sa'd] Hariri's money, [Maronite Lebanese Forces'
leader] Geagea's public, and [Druze pro-government leader] Jumblatt's
noise, and despite the support he received from the international
community and the capitals of Arab moderation - in fact, despite
exploiting widowers and bereaved mothers as an integral part of his
'electoral machine' in pursuit of sympathy, solidarity, and backing
from the voters.
[Anti-government Maronite leader] General Michel 'Aoun is the second
greatest loser. From now on, he will no longer be able to claim
to speak on behalf of 70% of the Christians - and the Maronites in
particular. The man who swept over the Christian areas in 2005 and
deserved Jumblatt's description of him as a 'tsunami', could barely
get more than 400 votes more for his candidate Kamil Khouri over his
opponent Amin Gemayel.
Had it not been for the Armenian vote, Aoun would have totally lost
face. But the Armenian Tashnaq Party and Christian anti-government
leader Michel Murr saved the day for him, and inflicted a defeat
on the Phalange leader and the [anti-Syria] March 14th candidate
[Gemayel] in Btighrin (Murr's stronghold) and Burj Hammoud (the
Armenians' stronghold.)
MP Sa'd Hariri - a sheikh, son of a sheikh, and grandson of a sheikh -
was also among the major losers. Sunni Beirut was too lazy to go to
the ballot box in large numbers despite the intensive campaigns led by
Sheikh Sa'd personally, despite his daily and repeated invocation of
[his father, former assassinated Lebanese PM Rafiq] Hariri's blood, and
despite the enormous financial and religious institutional mobilization
which turned Dar al-Ifta' [the highest Sunni religious establishment
in the country] into an electoral office for the Future Current. Still,
the level of Beiruti participation in the election did not exceed 20%.
So, who won these elections? It can be said without exaggeration that
at least some Lebanese democratic traditions have won:
First, the army won by adopting neutrality and as a result of its
success in maintaining law and order which faced a genuine threat of
breaking down because of the sharp degree of polarization.
Second, the government succeeded by adopting a neutral position
- relatively, if not absolutely - despite the fact that it was a
party to the conflict. The government succeeded in carrying out its
professional duties, setting all petty calculations aside.
Third, the Lebanese justice system also succeeded in saving the ballot
boxes at the eleventh hour after they were almost cancelled due to
suspicions of electoral fraud.
Finally, and at many levels, the Lebanese people succeeded, despite
the fact that they have been split into warring communities. And this
should provide everyone with evidence of the dangers of sectarian
politics and 'Lebanonization.' It should provide them with evidence of
the terrible outcome of foreign intervention in the domestic affairs
of any country.
Still, Lebanon rose as a witness to political and intellectual
pluralism and to the responsible nature of its elite even when they
are at the peak of their irresponsibility. The country stands as
witness to the independence and integrity of its judiciary.
"Are there any better lessons than these for us all to learn instead
of confining ourselves to empty talk and shedding tears over the
empty half of the Lebanese cup?" asks Rintawi in conclusion.
Mideast Mirror
August 7, 2007 Tuesday
The main players may have all lost out, but the results of the weekend
Lebanese by-elections stand as testimony to Lebanon's democratic
traditions, says 'Urayb ar-Rintawi in today's Jordanian ad-Dustour
The weekend's Lebanese by-elections have left many losers in their
wake, claims a leading Jordanian commentator. Most of the political
participants in that game have emerged as losers, but Lebanon and
its democratic traditions have emerged as the main winners.
[The deadlocked struggle between the pro-U.S. government and
mainly Shiite opposition deepened yesterday (Monday) after a tense
parliamentary election showed a sharp divide among Christians, a
key swing bloc. That deadlock was reinforced when pro-government
candidate Amin Gemayel, a former president and the head of one
of Lebanon's most powerful Maronite Christian families, conceded
defeat by a mere 418 votes in Sunday's election in the Christian
stronghold of Metn north of Beirut. The victor was little-known
Kamil Khoury, who was backed by the most prominent Christian leader
in the pro-Syrian opposition, Michel Aoun. Khoury took 39,534 votes
to Gemayel's 39,116. Many fear the deepening stalemate may lead to
the formation of competing governments if it is not resolved before
the race to replace pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, whose term
ends Nov. 23. Under Lebanon's division of power among its sects,
the presidency must be held by a Maronite Christian chosen parliament.
Now, no Maronite leader can boost his bid among lawmakers by claiming
to represent the entire community. Gemayel's loss is a setback for
his potential as a candidate. Aoun has said he will stand for the
presidency. But the slimness of Kamil Khoury's victory Sunday damages
his patron Aoun's attempts to present himself as the top Christian
politician. Gemayel got more of the Maronite vote than his rival --
75 percent, according to press reports. But Aoun's candidate made up
for it by winning other Christians' votes. Gemayel supporters blamed
his loss on the large ethnic Armenian community in the Metn district
and said Kamil Khoury was not representative of the Maronites, who
form a majority in the district and are the largest Christian sect
in Lebanon. Armenians are largely Catholic or Orthodox Christian.
Another election Sunday was to replace lawmaker Walid Eido, a Sunni
Muslim who was killed in a June car bombing there. A pro-government
candidate, Mohammed al-Amin Itani, won that race easily.]
LOSERS ALL: "I cannot find one single winner in Lebanon's weekend
by-elections," writes 'Urayb ar-Rintawi in Tuesday's Amman daily
ad-Dustour.
They all seem to be losers! Losers! [Pro-government Maronite leader
of the Phalange Party and former president] Amin Gemayel seems to be
the greatest loser. He first inherited his parliamentary seat for the
Metn area from his uncle Maurice Gemayel in 1971. He then inherited
his brother [Bashir] as president after a powerful bomb killed him on
the threshold of Ba'abda Presidential Palace in 1982. But he failed
to inherit his own [assassinated] son, minister and MP Pierre Gemayel.
He failed despite the firm coalition between [Sunni Future Current
billionaire leader Sa'd] Hariri's money, [Maronite Lebanese Forces'
leader] Geagea's public, and [Druze pro-government leader] Jumblatt's
noise, and despite the support he received from the international
community and the capitals of Arab moderation - in fact, despite
exploiting widowers and bereaved mothers as an integral part of his
'electoral machine' in pursuit of sympathy, solidarity, and backing
from the voters.
[Anti-government Maronite leader] General Michel 'Aoun is the second
greatest loser. From now on, he will no longer be able to claim
to speak on behalf of 70% of the Christians - and the Maronites in
particular. The man who swept over the Christian areas in 2005 and
deserved Jumblatt's description of him as a 'tsunami', could barely
get more than 400 votes more for his candidate Kamil Khouri over his
opponent Amin Gemayel.
Had it not been for the Armenian vote, Aoun would have totally lost
face. But the Armenian Tashnaq Party and Christian anti-government
leader Michel Murr saved the day for him, and inflicted a defeat
on the Phalange leader and the [anti-Syria] March 14th candidate
[Gemayel] in Btighrin (Murr's stronghold) and Burj Hammoud (the
Armenians' stronghold.)
MP Sa'd Hariri - a sheikh, son of a sheikh, and grandson of a sheikh -
was also among the major losers. Sunni Beirut was too lazy to go to
the ballot box in large numbers despite the intensive campaigns led by
Sheikh Sa'd personally, despite his daily and repeated invocation of
[his father, former assassinated Lebanese PM Rafiq] Hariri's blood, and
despite the enormous financial and religious institutional mobilization
which turned Dar al-Ifta' [the highest Sunni religious establishment
in the country] into an electoral office for the Future Current. Still,
the level of Beiruti participation in the election did not exceed 20%.
So, who won these elections? It can be said without exaggeration that
at least some Lebanese democratic traditions have won:
First, the army won by adopting neutrality and as a result of its
success in maintaining law and order which faced a genuine threat of
breaking down because of the sharp degree of polarization.
Second, the government succeeded by adopting a neutral position
- relatively, if not absolutely - despite the fact that it was a
party to the conflict. The government succeeded in carrying out its
professional duties, setting all petty calculations aside.
Third, the Lebanese justice system also succeeded in saving the ballot
boxes at the eleventh hour after they were almost cancelled due to
suspicions of electoral fraud.
Finally, and at many levels, the Lebanese people succeeded, despite
the fact that they have been split into warring communities. And this
should provide everyone with evidence of the dangers of sectarian
politics and 'Lebanonization.' It should provide them with evidence of
the terrible outcome of foreign intervention in the domestic affairs
of any country.
Still, Lebanon rose as a witness to political and intellectual
pluralism and to the responsible nature of its elite even when they
are at the peak of their irresponsibility. The country stands as
witness to the independence and integrity of its judiciary.
"Are there any better lessons than these for us all to learn instead
of confining ourselves to empty talk and shedding tears over the
empty half of the Lebanese cup?" asks Rintawi in conclusion.