Michael Young

Two interesting dynamics were on display this week, and will shape what happens in Lebanon during the coming months.

The first was the decision of the “You Stink” activists to take over the Environment Ministry and try to force the resignation of Mohammad Machnouk. The political class reacted as one to this action, condemning what had happened. The second was the announcement by the speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri, that a dialogue session would be held on Sept. 9.

The demonstrations against the corruption of the Lebanese political class is unlikely to change much in the system, certainly not its sectarian basis. But what it has done is to alarm the politicians because they have retained little control over events. What the activists have shown is that there is an alternative model to that favored by the political elite and characterized by obedience to the leaderships, who have the authority to manipulate the system and make shady deals with one another while dividing the national pie among all.

For all its sordidness this arrangement brings stability. The resort to the street, mostly by young people, does not. Those who took over the Environment Ministry Tuesday made what were perfectly legitimate claims, and have sympathy. Yet they also provoked uneasiness because of their willingness to break the political rules in pursuit of their objectives. At a moment when Lebanon seems on the edge of the abyss this disturbed many people, even those fed up with the politicians.

That’s why Berri’s announcement was very welcome. Dialogue sessions in the past have essentially been gab fests – calming tensions by showing the willingness of all sides to talk, but otherwise leading to few results. This time may be the same, but everyone understands that on Sept. 9 more will be expected. The dialogue provides an opportunity for the politicians to regain some credit with a population whose fury is growing.

Lebanon is slowly drifting into chaos and the continued vacuum at the level of state institutions is no longer sustainable. The government has failed, there is no president, and Parliament is not functioning. Lebanon’s political actors have to decide whether they can pursue their aims in a situation that is deteriorating by the day, with an increasingly angry public no longer able to stomach abysmal social and economic conditions.

The principal question is whether Hezbollah accepts this. The party has successfully ensured that only Michel Aoun would be blamed for the presidential void, but it’s no secret that if Hezbollah tells the general that it will back a compromise candidate, he will have to go along with it. Aoun cannot afford to break with the party over such a decision. He gains much from his alliance with Hezbollah and would be foolish to allow differences over the presidency to lead to a divorce.

Prospects are not good for Hezbollah. The party is mired in its own Vietnam in Syria, and, at best, can hold the line for President Bashar Assad. It can expect no decisive battles on Assad’s behalf, while the party’s hubris has blinded it to this reality. Shiite discontent is reportedly on the rise, as is that in the party’s military ranks. The sectarian cleansing of Homs and other districts has transformed Lebanon’s Shiites into a minority at home with respect to the Sunnis. Hezbollah is paying a heavy price for its allegiance to Iran.

At the same time Hezbollah needs stability at home in order to be able to continue the battle in Syria. But that equation can no longer hold for as along as a president has not been elected and an ineffective government remains in place. Lebanese dissatisfaction has become unmanageable, which is why the protests against the trash crisis have become so worrisome. They have shown the political class, above all Hezbollah, that managing the status quo is no longer feasible.

Does this mean Hezbollah may be willing to back the election of a compromise president? Nothing is less certain. The party is not good at backtracking, and still probably worries that such a step might create a rift with Aoun at a moment when Hezbollah needs all the friends it can get. It is improbable that Aoun will take himself out of the running, though he surely knows that he has no chance of becoming president and that Hezbollah’s capacity to have him elected is looking less and less realistic.

The choice is a simple one. If the political class cannot break out of the current deadlock, those in the street will only gain and the sense of ambient chaos will grow. If the politicians can deliver on the election of a president and the formation of a new government, this will significantly improve matters in the country, allowing them to regain the initiative. But one thing should be clear by now: The public will no longer accept the daily insults to their existence caused by the state’s incompetence and the fact that billions of dollars that were slated to upgrade Lebanon’s collapsing infrastructure have either not been spent or have ended up in the pockets of politicians.

Nor is such an observation rank populism. When for the last decade vast sums of money have been poured into the electricity sector, only for a city like Beirut to see its hours of rationing go up from three to six a day, no one can argue that the money for the sector was well spent. And since bad choices are usually linked to illegal practices, we can reach our own conclusions.

The contempt shown by the political class for the Lebanese has backfired. The civil society campaigns may seem naïve and may have overreached, but they express something real. Unless the politicians use the dialogue sessions to improve the situation in material ways and allow the state to function, Lebanon will soon collapse. That’s why people are worried. Who can blame them?