AFTER more than two years of waiting, Lebanon has finally elected a president. However, some analysts say that whether a president is elected or not has little significance when it comes to political stability of the country. In fact, it can complicate the current situation.
Above all why did the country wait for such a long period just to elect a president that has left it in domestic mess, crippled its economy and spoiled its foreign policy?
Writing in the Al Arabiya, (November 5) columnist Eyad Abu Shakra said that “Hizbollah, which is inseparable part of Iranian regional set-up and is widely said to follow its orders and political directives throughout the Middle East, has been the actor that has prevented the election of a president for the past 29 months, blackmailing the Lebanese people into accepting its candidate.”
Lebanon is under the grips of Hizbollah, which still has the potential to determine the political future of the country. That implies supporting the ongoing war in Syria and promoting Iranian agenda in the region. These decisions do not seem to go well with the elected prime minister’s political ambitions. The president most likely is going to be symbolic and any cabinet decisions can be vetoed by Hizbollah.
So electing a president doesn’t appear to be an end by itself. Several domestic affairs and a host of foreign policies need to be fixed if Lebanon is going to stand on its feet. The domestic affairs including the rubbish collection business and the influx of Syrian and Iraqi refugees to the country which put pressure on the socio-economic fabric of the country can be fixed once a functioning government and cabinet are established.
The foreign policies are the ones that can shape the country’s position in the otherwise turbulent regional politics.
So far Lebanon’s foreign policy has been and continues to be muddled by Hizbollah’s intervention in Syria. If the government is aiming to work for state interest, the first step it should take is to rein in Hizbollah, force it to withdraw from Syria and stop promoting Iranian regional agenda.
However, this is easier said than done. Neither the president nor the prime minister has the power to bring Hizbollah under the state law. This issue remains at the centre of the political conflict in the country, the outcome of which will shape the future political landscape of Lebanon.
As a political party Hizbollah belongs to Lebanon and is expected to play a role in the future development of the nation. If it serves to promote Iranian agenda, as it is doing now, it belongs to a terrorist organisation, whose tentacles reached almost every corner of the Middle East and beyond.
Several countries including Bahrain have been affected by Hizbollah’s terrorist activities. Its actions forced Lebanon to sever relations with a host of regional countries.
The prime minister elect is a Western-backed Sunni and has good relationship with Saudi Arabia and opposes Hizbollah’s intervention in Syria. These combinations of interests are likely to be toxic to Hizbollah. That might be the reason for Hizbollah’s refusal to back him. Thus he has an uphill task of forming a national unity cabinet that can satisfy all political parties. Lebanon’s crisis doesn’t appear to end with electing a president. As long as Hizbollah interferes in its foreign policy and serves Iran, the country will find itself in a political quandary for years to come.
However, the Lebanese election demonstrated that a seemingly unending sectarian conflict can be solved if power-sharing agreement is made among the stakeholders. Can it be used as a template for future peaceful political settlements in Iraq and Syria?
&uuid=(email))