Right Wing Nut House

I saw a great “Frontline - World” program last night on the progress of democratic reform in Lebanon featuring some extraordinary interviews by correspondent Kate Seelye with various members of the opposition. From statements made on the show plus more recent meetings of the opposition coalition, the Qornet Shehwan Gathering, the picture that’s emerging is one of a mostly united opposition working hard to paper over their political and sectarian differences in order to defeat the Syrian-backed candidates arrayed against them in the upcoming elections which will begin on May 29.

First, if the United States is under the expectation that Hezballah will disarm and not take part in the political process, we’re going to be sadly disappointed. Despite Hezballah’s terrorist activities against Israel and their acting as Syria’s enforcers during the recent occupation, they’ve become a political force to be reckoned with through both their numbers and their representation in Lebanon’s Parliament. With 12 seats in the 128 seat legislative body, Hezballah is well positioned to play a part in any post election government. And how that government will take shape will have to be hammered out in meetings like the one held yesterday under the auspices of the Qornet Shehwan Gathering and the Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir:

Some Christian politicians within the group had already sealed electoral alliances despite opposition from Sfeir and others who were hoping a refusal to participate would force a change in the election law.

But Sfeir denied there was any conflict within the gathering.

The patriarch said: “It is all rumors being circulated in the media to break up the unity of the opposition.”

Sfeir added: “I am sure that the Lebanese will unite despite the electoral process, which might politically separate them briefly.”

The “election law” dates from the year 2000 and was forced down the throat of the Lebanese by Syria. The law is an anathema to Christians because it favors other religious minorities:

The reason other sects are not strongly in favor of helping the Christians in their campaign to reform the electoral law is twofold.

First, the 2000 election law benefits the old, well-established political parties. Although the major politicians may not be the most popular representatives of their constituents, they have a wider range of support. The way the law is written, it is better to have 100 supporters in every city in the South than it is to have 1,000 voters in the same place.

Obviously, given that the government is a major employer in every city in Lebanon and given that Lebanese politicians designate employee status, old politicians have a wider range of support. This is particularly true in the case of Speaker Nabih Berri whose main source of power is in the assignment of government jobs.

Jumblatt’s power base was affirmed in 2000. He now only has problems in Baabda-Aley, but could gain seats in the Bekaa and South through deals with Hezbollah.

The good news is that the Christian minority will not call for a boycott of the elections. Like good democrats, they’re going to wait until after the election and then work within the coalition to radically reform the Lebanese political system. As it stands now, various jobs in government - the President, the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the House - are reserved for specific religious minorities. Also, legislative districts are drawn to maximize sectarian advantage. The Christians want to change this as it puts them at a disadvantage. They do have some support for this:

Following a meeting with U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman, Sheikh Abdel-Amir Qabalan said the best electoral law would be based on the single-district system and proportional representation. Qabalan said adopting a system of smaller districts, or qadas, will only promote sectarianism and hamper the country’s development.

“Adopting the mohafaza system with proportional representation allows the Lebanese to elect their representatives,” he said, adding that Parliament did not adopt the 2000 electoral law in order to “marginalize any Lebanese faction,” but only to avoid delaying the elections.

“We want to live in harmony and coexistence with different Lebanese sects,” he said.

And the old Druze warlord Walid Jumblatt along with Rafik Hariri’s son Said have also become part of this loose coalition, although Jumblatt is trying to align himself with Hezballah:

During a question-and-answer session with his supporters, Jumblatt tells a man in the crowd that he wants to cooperate with Hezbollah. He tells Seelye that Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization and that one solution to the problem of disarming Hezbollah is to integrate their militia into the Lebanese army. In his vision of a new Lebanon, Jumblatt supports modernizing the country by abandoning the traditional political system, which is based on religious affiliation.

He may get an argument on this integration of Hezballah with other members of the coalition who see Hezballah as too close to the Syrians. And at the very least, the United States (as well as others in the opposition) would like to see the Hezballah militias disarmed:

With Hezbollah embedded so deeply in the current political and social fabric of Lebanon, attacking the organization now could plunge the country back into chaos. Meanwhile, Hezbollah leaders have made several overtures to the United States. After September 11, for example, the group quickly criticized bin Laden’s attack. In recent interviews, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah has said that his organization is not a threat to the United States.

Hezbollah’s status is in flux, its future unclear. A few key questions remain to be answered: What will be the likely effect of this U.S. pressure? Can Hezbollah withstand the diplomatic onslaught, rally its allies, and sustain its position? Will the U.S. government launch an all-out assault? Or might Hezbollah be willing to pay a price — that of disbanding its military activities — for its survival, in order to grow even larger as a powerful political party in Lebanon?

Good questions those. And this makes Hezballah something of a wild card when it comes to determining the shape of the Lebanese government. If they forsake their militia role for a purely political one, will they continue to receive support from Assad in Syria? Or the mullahs in Iran?

As for the overall pace of reform, there’s a debate going on now as to how much, if at all, America is helping speed the process. There are some who believe that reform movements should steer clear of American assistance lest they be tarnished by our unpopular policies. But there are others who see George Bush’s commitment to democracy as one of the biggest catalysts for change. Here’s American scholar Michael Hudson (no fan of the President or his policies);

“There is a really substantial stirring for change in societies throughout the Middle East that we have not seen before,” he says. “People are talking, debating, and organizing everywhere, and even members of the ruling elite see that the time has come for real change.” He calls for a serious debate on whether the American government’s Arab reform promotion policies are having any impact, noting that this is not a black and white case where Washington is either presciently honorable or deviously duplicitous. Is there a causal relationship between Washington’s reform promotion policy and the changes taking place in the region? At the least, he believes, President George W. Bush has enjoyed lucky timing, and has tapped into forces and calls for change that were already under way in the Middle East, even though he may have had nothing to do with fomenting those forces.

Clearly Lebanon is at a crossroads. It’s very encouraging that for the moment, the opposition seems to be on the same page. But once the election is held and the grasping for power begins, it will be interesting to see whether or not the “earthquake” that rattled Lebanon following the assassination of Rafiq Hariri will provide enough momentum so that Lebanon’s many factions can safely traverse the rocky road in front of them and achieve the freedom and democracy the people devoutly wish for.