By Jamal Bittar
The visit of Saad Hariri to Damascus last month is a clear indication that Lebanon has entered a phase of entente, stability and productivity. The stage of extremist stances have ended and the main parties have stopped raising contentious subjects and have focused on consensual matters regarding the building of state institutions and dealing with problems that weigh heavily on the ordinary Lebanese.
Hezbullah has proclaimed a document intended to reassure the Lebanese in general and the Christians in particular, in which it committed itself to consensual democracy; general Michel Aoun took part in the monthly meeting of Maronite bishops—an iniatiative without precedent bearing in itself many significations; finally, the Hariri government has committed itself to undertake a program of reforms to deal with the problems that weigh heavily on the everyday lives of the people, like, healthcare, traffic congestion and the state of the roads, the conditions of the schools, water, etc. Not the least important of its concerns is the protection of the environment. Lebanon has been represented at the Copenhagen conference by a delegation led by the prime minister himself.
In addition to Hariri’s visit, President Michel Sleiman has faith in the importance of Lebanese-Syrian relations, which need to be re-forged. This can only have positive repercussions on communities, parties and currents of opinion. That way, national entente will be given concrete form. In this we see the pivotal role of president Sleiman, the twelfth president since independence, moving in the line of President Fuad Shehab, the first one to emphasize the necessity of reforming the institutions of the state in the framework of modernity. He also erected a high wall against Arab interference through his meeting with president Jamal Abdel Nasser in a tent put up on the Lebanese-Syrian frontier line, thus neutralizing internal as well as influences. President Sleiman is concerned to preserve Lebanon’s security and promote its stability and prosperity. No one doubts his firm will to do this.
Further, all the Arab and international indications are positive for Lebanon, except for Israel, which constantly reiterates threats for any reason or no reason. We have heard the Israeli prime minister express opposition to Hezbullah ministers joining the Lebanese government, which constitutes an unwarranted interference in Lebanese domestic affairs, and the Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak, declare that Lebanon, not Hezbullah , would be held responsible for whatever happens on the frontier. In fact, the Lebanese are used to the policy of threats practiced by Tel Aviv, and to which they will not submit, knowing that Israel is incapable of accomplishing its goals thanks to their resistance and national unity, which is reflected positively on the world scene.
But in order for all the Lebanese, who aspire to exit the traps of sectarianism and move from political institutions dating from the ottoman era to a state of modernity, knowledge and productivity, there should be genuine reform, and that reform starts with a new election law, which will not be tailored to meet the specifications of particular politicians, but will be the result of a consensus among constitutional experts, who will submit it to the people as a source of power and sovereignty. The government should take on exceptional powers in order to undertake administrative reform without delay and to carry out a battle to purify the state. In the same way, there should be a commitment to apply the Taif agreement, which should lead to formation of a body to be tasked with abolishing sectarianism as well as the nationality law and on personal status. The principle of accountability should be a mandatory matter on the reform agenda. This file is essential for the executive and legislative powers; it should be based on a long term program or plan. It would be ridiculous if the change did not include the liquidation of a particularly heave legacy of the past which has laid an enormous debt on the state, which is comparable to a leak in the ship, as James Wolfensohn, former president of the world bank, once observed.
It is true that the cabinet’s policy statement had a special significance for treating the subject of Hezbullah’s weapons as well as other projects. It is also true that the discussion of these subjects was characterized by great controversy within and outside parliament. But the civil service appointments are the most important test. If men and women of competence and youth are recruited, that will mean that reform is approaching. If however the appointments are made in the fashion of sharing spoils and clientelism, this will mean that reform has been delayed yet again, despite the fact that most ministers are favorable to it.
It is worth pointing out that reform is not a mere technical operation or an action of specialists, nor is it a decision of a minister. It is a political decision par excellence, the imposition of a general political situation as well as a situation among the people.
The enhanced credibility the cabinet gains by tackling these matters might just give it that degree of weight in the eyes of public opinion to enable it to make headway towards solutions in the more intractable issues. Perhaps the opening of these doors will facilitate the opening of bigger doors.
