Thursday, January 13, 2011

From outside, Wednesday’s events in Lebanon might appear to be an exercise in democracy and normal constitutional procedures. But the Cabinet’s collapse amid a dispute over the Special Tribunal for Lebanon comes at a time of extreme sensitivity in the Mideast, and after months of Arab mediation failed to solve the impasse.

Politicians are now calling for a homegrown, Lebanese solution, but this is difficult to envision as the next expected steps take place: the formal resignation of the government and the president’s call for binding consultations to name the next prime minister.
The “opposition” may have taken the step of resigning en masse and bringing down the Cabinet in the belief it has secured a majority of Parliament, which will allow the naming of a prime minister who is not Saad Hariri.
It is well-understood that such a figure would struggle mightily as premier, because he would lack the support of leading members of the Sunni community.

Such a scenario would signal that the Lebanese have learned little in recent decades. In the 1950s, President Camille Chamoun was mired in a dispute with leading Muslim politicians and named a prime minister (Sami Solh) who was quickly ostracized by the Sunni community. The same was experienced by Salim al-Hoss, when President Emile Lahoud named him to the prime minister’s post in 1998.

Leading Christian parties suffered from political “frustration” in the 1990s when they were excluded from government, and the government of Fouad Siniora encountered huge difficulties trying to govern while at odds with the leaders of the Shiite community a few years ago, in the wake of the assassination of Rafik Hariri. Under Lebanon’s sectarian system, marginalizing a leading group leads nowhere.

Despite all of its faults, the outgoing government was much more representative than others, as the fruit of the 2008 Doha accord. Its successor might make a top priority out of derailing the S.T.L., by refusing to cooperate with, fund, or staff the tribunal.

Such a course would bring Lebanon into a confrontation with the international community whose repercussions will be difficult to predict, other than the certainty that all of Lebanon’s sects will be affected.
Lebanon is a fragile place, but when there is stability, the country can capitalize on its prime resource: serving as an oasis of investment, a symbol of diversity, and a hive of cultural and social activity.

However, the country is awash in socio-economic problems and faces an array of challenges. If the next government embarks on a course of provocation, it will only add to a depressingly long list of problems.
As long as the rhetoric and actions of politicians remain within acceptable norms, perhaps Lebanon can find a way out of its impasse. But if the rival sides fail to re-think their positions, and generate a truly workable political formula, a bleak future awaits.