BEIRUT -- Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah has announced that Friday at 3 p.m. (conveniently after Friday prayers) would be the "zero hour" that his supporters and political allies would take to the streets to force the resignation of the current Lebanese government.
The so-called March 8 movement, which takes its name from the massive March 8, 2005 demonstration that was to "thank" Syria for its 29-year occupation of Lebanon, is dominated by Hezbollah, the Shi'ite militant group that fought Israel to a standstill the summer. Because of its "divine victory," as Hezbollah called it, and what Nasrallah says was insufficient fealty to the group's war on the part of Fuad Siniora and the Lebanese government, Hezbollah, Amal and the largely Christian Free Patriotic Movement were demanding veto power in the cabinet. (It's widely assumed that the March 8 movement, which is supportive of Syria, is trying to derail the U.N. tribunal set up to try suspects in the case of the murder of ex-premier Rafik Hariri, in which Syria is suspected. Veto power in the cabinet would grant them this power.)
They didn't get the expanded number of seats in the cabinet, as there's already been an election and there won't be another one for parliament until 2009, so now they're taking to the streets to topple the government, which they say is exercising their "democratic rights."
It seems March 8 has a funny idea of democracy.
In most parliamentary democracies, if the government doesn't survive a vote of no-confidence in parliament, it has to resign. Siniora's government is backed by the March 14 movement, named for an equally massive protest on that date in 2005 that was in response to the March 8 protest. (Confused yet?)
Siniora's government would handily survive a no-confidence vote because March 14 won the elections that year. The March 8 group is in the minority and calls itself the opposition.
Hezbollah & Co. are, instead, taking to the streets, warning government workers not to go to work and generally threatening to bring Lebanon's government and economy to a crashing halt if they don't get their way.
That's not democracy. Most people would call that a coup d'état.
At the heart of the dispute are arcane provisions in the Lebanese constitution that call for representation from all the 14 official sects in the country to be represented in parliament and in the cabinet. But Hezbollah et al. walked out! They weren't excluded, which seems to be what the clauses in the charter are aimed at preventing. What I find difficult to swallow is that March 8 is demanding an expansion of their representation in cabinet to 1/3rd plus one -- which would give them the veto -- even though they've already walked out and declared the cabinet out of quorum, and thus illegitimate. Doesn't that mean they already had the veto power, albeit one they could only exercise with their feet?
When I asked Hossein Naboulsi, former Hezbollah spokesman but still loyal party member, about this, he said that they merely wanted the representation that their numbers warranted. This is a very dangerous attitude in Lebanon.
Lebanon's government is complicated and fragile, as you would expect in a country where no one group is the majority. (Depending on which study you refer to, Shi'a and Christians make up about 1/3rd each, while Sunnis make up about 30 percent. Druze and other minorities, including a few thousand Kurds, make up the rest. No census has been taken since 1932, however, so no one really knows.) Since 1990, when the Taef Accords ended the 15-year civil war, the political balance of power was artificially set at an even number of Christians and Muslims in parliament. (Before Taef, it was six Christians to five Muslims, reflecting the 1932 census.) It also reinforced the "National Pact," which has never been set in stone, but which obligates the Christians to recognize Lebanon's Arab nature and not seek protection from the French anymore, and the Muslims were to recognize Lebanon's 1920 borders and cease attempts to unite with Syria. Both sides are openly breaking breaking their side of the deal, with France making up the bulk of UNIFIL II and Hezbollah going steady with Syria.
Everyone knows the seats in parliament aren't allocated on who has the biggest group, but that's actually the point: Lebanon's system, while imperfect, allows for the voices of all groups to be heard, not just that of the largest and loudest -- which today would presumably be that of the Shi'a. It prevents the tyranny of the majority. For most Lebanese, this is a blessing because the largest political party (Hezbollah) in the largest sect (the Shi'a) is committed to forming an Islamic Republic in Lebanon modeled on Iran's.
Now, Hezbollah long ago formally renounced forcing an Islamic Republic on Lebanon, saying instead that it would let the people decide. But Hezbollah is now saying they deserve more power not because they won it in elections -- which would be fine -- but because they just "won" a war and, well, since Shi'a make up the biggest group (they say), hand over those reins of power, boys.
When I was down in Ait al-Chaab, on the Israel border shortly after the war, I met a Hezbollah party member who declined to give his name, but he said, "Those who can defend Lebanon deserve to rule it." It was chilling the way he said it.
So like I said, this is not democracy; this is a coup. No elections, no debate on whether the Taef system should be scrapped, just "give us more seats or the downtown gets it." The idea of consensual decision-making has been scrapped and the idea, which I saw in Iraq, that the biggest group calls the shots has taken hold. So much for minority rights.
Who's the blame? Now, this is already a long-winded post, but there's a lot to say on this matter. And a lot of blame to go around, too. But one party stands out as supremely stupid, and it's the usual one: the United States. Siniora's government is backed by America and France against Hezbollah and its Syrian and Iranian patrons. But by taking such a hard-line against the militant group, which Washington has labeled as terrorist, they have effectively prevented Siniora from reaching any kind of compromise, a situation that now endangers the entire Lebanese experience -- and the country's position in the Western sphere of influence. (Nasrallah often refers to Siniora's government as the "Feltman government," referring to the U.S. ambassador here.)
Make no mistake, Hezbollah will probably succeed in bringing down Sinora's government. There's only so much pressure Lebanon can bear and most politicians here would accede to Hezbollah -- and Syria's -- demands rather than risk another round of civil war. Should Sinora's government fall, there will be a caretaker government and then a new round of elections, in which Hezbollah and its pro-Syrian allies will probably win a majority. This means the United States will be faced not with a government that merely includes Hezbollah, but is run by it. Hezbollah will have gained much more than veto power; it will have gained control. Syria will have a free hand in Lebanon, and Lebanon will come out the loser. (Say goodbye to most Western investment and Saudi money, which Lebanon desperately needs; hello, Lebanon Accountability Act.)
Also, Israel will have an even more hostile neighbor on its northern flank. If fighting breaks out again between Hezbollah and Israel, and the Shi'ite group has a parliamentary majority, does anyone really think Israel will hold back? This last summer's war, while brutal, could have been much worse if Israel had more aggressively targeted government and state institutions.
So that's where we stand and what the stakes are. This is a defining moment in the Middle East. The outcome of this showdown will help determine the strength of American influence and could fundamentally change the strategic considerations of the Jewish state. Lebanon, currently a Western-friendly nation, could be wrenched back into the Iranian-Syrian sphere of influence with a possible sea-change in its culture in a few years to one more friendly to Islamic governance.
No wonder the tension in the air here is as tight as a garrote.
I’ve just finished producing a two-hour documentary about the Middle East during and shortly after World War One (“Blood and Oil”). The British and French tried military solutions in the Middle East 85 years ago, and met with disastrous results. Too bad the Bush Administration didn’t heed the lessons of history before sending our troops to Iraq. It will be interesting to see if the Baker Group cites the first insurrection in Iraq…against British troops in 1920. And the first Western military operation to protect its oil interests in the Middle East: November 1914.
Thats one of the lowest estimates for the Shi’ite population I’ve ever seen. According to the CIA, its 40%. And I’m guessing its probably higher.
Also - why in the heck can’t you have a new census? This seems absolutely foundational to dealing with the problems in the country.
Hezbollah are clearly trying to pull an illegal and dangerous stunt here. Anti-democratic as you say. But the nature of the Lebanese state is not democratic. This ridicolous balancing and horse-trading is the fundamental problem. It reminds me of the constant (eventually futile) compromises in the 40 or so years before the American Civil War.
Either break the thing apart or have a new census (in exchange for Hezbollah disarming). To me, these are the only long term solutions.
Thanks for your analysis Chris. Fits what I know from friends in Lebanon, though, as supporters of Michel Aoun, they like the outcome you sketch. From their point of view, the Saudis are the enemy, not Syria. And the U.S. and Israel of course.
Take care if it blows.
However, the logic of the above post eludes me: you describe the Hezbollah intended coup and the motivations behind it and then blame the US for limiting Siniora’s ability to negotiate.
I think the logic goes as follows. And I tend to agree - at least to a point. The US, in the wake of the 2005 protests, tried to pursue a “maximalist” solution in Lebanon with regards to their (for now) allies and assumed they could totally marginalize and even destroy Hezbollah. Hence the de facto support for Israel this summer in their campaign.
But maximalist solutions aren’t possible in Lebanon. And Hezbollah is not some “fringe” radical group, but deeply imbedded in the Shi’ite community. So when the US attempted an unrealistic maximalist strategy, they invited an equal and opposite reaction from Hezbollah which could collapse the government and turn the government into Civil War. Which the US - or at least elements in the current admin., I should say - believe a Civil War is in fact not a bad outcome because this is simply the “birth pangs” of a “new Middle East” or whatever. Because of course, this time, the Shi’ite community will somehow magically disappear.
I don’t get the Aounists, frankly. Here’s a guy who spent 15 years in France, helped get 1559 as well as the Syrian Accountability Act passed and a good junk of his supporters are Francophone/Francophile middle-class Christians… And they see US and France as the enemy? And Syria and Iran as somehow reliable allies?
Of course, I realize in Lebanon it’s really about following your leaders, even if they lead you over a cliff. That’s what Aoun is doing for his followers right now. All he cares about is being president, and if he has to ally himself with Hezbollah and Syria to do it, well, so be it.
An interesting thread. I still fail to see how bringing them in would “blunt” them. It surely hasn’t in Iraq - merely given the haters a power position to make more mischief. I agree that talking is preferrable to shooting. However, the reason diplomacy has acquired a bad rep is that too many people forget that accountability has to be part of the equation. No businessman invites the CEO of his competitor onto his Board of Directors. Nor does he continue negotiations that do not promise him at least some of what he wants. But the other guy has to understand that there is a “walk away” point (Harvard Business School). But this is philosophy - let’s get back to Lebanon. What is it that Hezbollah would compromise on or do they see themselves as holding all the cards?
It seems that the best solution is a new census and elections based on that. Then its fair all the way around and a reflection of the popular will. We do that on a regular basis here in the US. I suppose other democracies do that too. Demographics change and so should the proportions in the Lebanese confessional system.
Since no community has a majority the government would always have to be a coalition government in a parliamentary sense which theoretically provides ample protection for minorities as they would be part of some coalition.
What’s happening right now could easily spiral out of control specially since so many outside parties from Syria, Iran, US, Israel, France and Saudi have their hands in the pie. If conflict breaks out the folks who suffer are always innocent civilians caught between the combatants.
I’ve just finished producing a two-hour documentary about the Middle East during and shortly after World War One (“Blood and Oil”). The British and French tried military solutions in the Middle East 85 years ago, and met with disastrous results. Too bad the Bush Administration didn’t heed the lessons of history before sending our troops to Iraq. It will be interesting to see if the Baker Group cites the first insurrection in Iraq…against British troops in 1920. And the first Western military operation to protect its oil interests in the Middle East: November 1914.