Friday, March 11, 2011
Editorial

The March 14 movement has unveiled a political program that defines the group’s core beliefs, principles and vision for the country’s future. Naturally, the document lays particular stress on achieving an end to non-state weapons, and retaining a commitment to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
Putting forward such a program is a perfectly natural development in a country that claims to have a democratic system of government, based on regular elections.

If Najib Mikati proves to be successful in his attempts to form a new government, the next Cabinet will also be required to submit its policy statement. This is also a normal, ordinary feature of a democratic, parliamentary system of government. There will undoubtedly be key points of divergence with the March 14 program, but it is often too easy to focus on such differences.

With the exception of what everyone knows divides the two rival camps, the policy statement by the next government, and the program announced by the opposition-to-be, share many items. Stances on the Palestinian issue, the importance of personal and private freedoms, the Taif Accord, national unity and other matters are likely to see no important divergence.

Lebanon has experienced considerable tension as the two sides mobilize their supporters, and ramp up their rhetoric, to promote their different visions. But the simple fact is that what Lebanon is experiencing is a norm in many other places – it’s called having a government, and having an opposition.

For too long, Lebanon’s executive branch has been an arena in which the oddest coalitions have struggled to work together; it is a place in which certain ministers are openly identified as “opposition” members. In the governments headed by the late Rafik Hariri, it was obvious that certain ministers represented political currents that were adamantly opposed to what Hariri stood for, and was trying to achieve. In one noticeable incident in the 1990s, sitting ministers voted no confidence in the cabinet in their “own” government.

This appears to be a thing of the past. Lebanon has a date with parliamentary elections in 2013, which means a suitable amount of time in which people can monitor the performance of the next government, and the opposition, and hold them accountable.

Both sides will continue the rhetoric, but in the end, people are not always stirred by slogans and speeches. If both sides formulate intelligent, well-thought-out plans of action, and stick to these “road maps” for the future, voters will be able to make the choices they should. Perhaps for once, having a clearly defined opposition that seeks to hold the government accountable will be the best possible remedy for one of the major failings of the country’s political system.