What’s Really Happening in Lebanon?
The tendency, when Americans focus on the upcoming Lebanese elections, is to see the conflict between the ruling March 14 Coalition and the opposition as a fight that’s all about Hezbollah. In reality, nobody can get anywhere in Lebanon without some kind of coalition, and the pivotal figure in determining the outcome will in many ways be Michael Aoun, a Christian. Elias Muhanna explains in a great piece for The National:
If the opposition prevails on June 7, headlines around the world will read “HIZBOLLAH WINS” even though the Shiite party is likely to hold no more seats in parliament than the dozen or so that it occupies today. It will, in fact, be the gains of the Free Patriotic Movement – and the affiliated parties of its Change and Reform Bloc – that will push the opposition into the majority, giving Aoun and his allies control of the largest block of seats in parliament.
Analysts and commentators have produced millions of words in an attempt to understand Hizbollah and its intentions, but Aoun and his movement have been overlooked. The FPM touts its ambitious and sweeping reform agenda, but the party – which sent representatives to parliament for the first time in 2005 – has only a brief track record in government and a leader renowned for his mercurial behaviour. Predicting the country’s course after the election is impossible, but it is clear that Michel Aoun and the Free Patriotic Movement are poised to play a major role – one that will test the party’s sincerity and determination to reform what it regards as a weak and ineffectual state.
The whole piece is very interesting. Not sure it has a quick “takeaway” conclusion, but the point I would emphasize to people looking at western press coverage of these events is that Lebanese politics is much more complicated than a black hats versus white hats struggle between Hezbollah and “the good guys.”
27 Responses to “What’s Really Happening in Lebanon?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
It may be complicated but a simple point is that Saudi Arabia and the West are pouring money in one side and Iran and Syria are pouring money in on the other side.
And Syria has been assassinating members of the March 14 coalition.
Even if the Hezbollah coalition wins, the opposion will still be fairly powerful, a “blocking minority” given the way the system is set up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/world/middleeast/23lebanon.html?_r=1
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Most political struggles are between the extremely violent thugs, and the somewhat less violent thugs. Sometimes the struggle is between two equally extremely violent thugs, or two somewhat less violent thugs.
Unlike Rousseau, I’ve never observed a good guy in a state of nature.
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Unlike Rousseau, I’ve never observed a good guy in a state of nature.
Or out of it, either.
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Most political struggles are between the extremely violent thugs, and the somewhat less violent thugs
That is certainly the case in the US.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Why oh why, if you think a faction of extremely violent thugs is trying to obtain or maintain power in the U.S., you are a naif when it comes to violence.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Will Allen,
Over the last eight years, a faction of extremely violent thugs operating from DC killed hundreds of thousands of people across the world. No other regime or organization could even compete with those guys when it came to violence and bodycount.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:23 pm
If there were ever a country that could break us of our belief that conflicts always have two sides, it is Lebanon. I’m skeptical that Aoun can win a larger bloc than Hezbollah, but who knows in Lebanon? In the end, Hezbollah still has the only credible army there, so they’ll have clout no matter what happens. But if they are part of the ruling coalition, maybe the government’s army and Hezbollah’s can merge. Okay, that’s probably way too optimistic, but I can dream, right? I actually think Lebanon has a chance of becoming stable. There’s a lot of tourist money at stake with its beautiful beaches. But there’s an equal chance it will devolve into chaos again. We’ll see. Great article, though.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:43 pm
why, like I said, you are a naif.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Just out of curiosity, do the Orthodox and Armenian Christians in Lebanon tend to side with the Maronites or with the Shia Muslims? I know that the Orthodox traditionally considered themselves disenfranchised like the Shia, but have allegiances changed in recent years?
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:33 pm
The Armenians side with whoever will help the Armenians. In this case, they are going with Hezbollah’s grouping, but they have always been a third force (or fourth or fifth depending on how you count).
The Armenians and the Orthodox don’t have the luxury of numbers or a stable position, so they have to look out for themselves first and always.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:51 pm
“(or fourth or fifth depending on how you count)”
How about eighth? The Armenians are about four percent. They are a swing vote, but only if they want to be moderate by Lebanon standards. The Orthodox are about fifteen percent, so they are a real faction. The Orthodox represent about half of the Christians and can have some real influence. The Armenians have always been untrustworthy in any country where the weren’t a majority, so they will always be a small portion of some other coalition, but only as a matter of convenience. If the Armenians want power, they need to learn to cooperate first. Their history in cooperating with the Russian invasions of Turkey won’t help them. And their recent non-cooperation in Lebanon only make that worse. I have nothing against them, but here’s a hint: when you’re a tiny minority, pissing people off is not a good strategy.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:01 pm
“but have allegiances changed in recent years?”
Nobody knows about that. Not even the Lebanese. Nobody really knows how the allegiances will hold up in the elections. Not even those making the allegiances. The history of Lebanon suggests that any allegiance will not last long. None ever have. Even if an allegiance lasts until the election, there is nothing to suggest it would last afterward. And then when Israel invades again (they surely will), the allegiances will realign anyway. Welcome to Lebanon.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Aren’t the Maronites pretty split?
The current ruling coalition appears to be centered around -
34 deputies from a largely Sunni party
14 deputies from a largely Druze party
11 deputies from two largely Maronite parties
The opposition largely consists of –
29 deputies from the Shiite parties (Amal and Hizbullah)
15 from Aoun’s Maronite party.
So, basically, the government is the Sunnis and Druze with some Maronites, the opposition is the Shi’ites and a majority of the Maronites. Unclear from wikipedia what the Orthodox party is.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Fostert,
That’s nothing but Turkish propaganda, as the estimable Daniel Larison has pointed out. The fact is that unlike the Slavic Christian subjects, for example, the Armenians were loyal to the Turkish Empire right up till the day the Empire started butchering them. Many Armenians served dutifully in the Turkish Army. The Armenians had made no serious bid for independence, and had made no serious overture to the Russians. The Turks simply decided to kill them because they knew Turkey was falling apart and they wanted to unify the populace in a crusade against a scapegoat. Just the way they carried out similar genocides against the Greeks and Assyrians at around the same time. Of course, just like the Jews in Germany, the accusations against the Armenians were totally fictitious.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Of course I should mention that Larison is also highly critical of the Armenians for embracing the Monophysite heresy.
June 4th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Of course I should mention that Larison is also highly critical of the Armenians for embracing the Monophysite heresy.
Considering Daniel is the last Byzantine, that’s unsurprising.
Prof. Kaegi – the main Byzantine historian here – thinks the whole dispute is kind of ridiculous. And no one else in our history dept. that I know shares anything like Daniel’s, shall we say idiosyncratic, views.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:42 am
“the Armenians were loyal to the Turkish Empire right up till the day the Empire started butchering them.”
That’s pure nonsense, and it’s well documented from Western sources that the Armenians split during the Russian invasions. Yes, some of them sided with the Turks, but given that Turkey was their country, that should be a given. The other Armenians committed treason, and were rightfully killed for it. We certainly wouldn’t tolerate the local Mexican population rising up against us during an invasion by Mexico. And don’t give me that crap that the Armenians should have owned that territory. Mexico deserves Texas for sure, and probably New Mexico, Arizona, and half of California. If we want Turkey to give up that land, are we willing to give up the lands we stole? Oh yeah, we stole this entire country, actually. So obviously not. But this idea that the Armenians actually supported the Turks prior to the invasions is pure Christianist nonsense. I usually respect you Hector. Even if I totally disagree, but you are pushing pure propaganda in this case. I heard this crap from Randall Terry when I hung out with him for a few days in Turkey. I had to defend his terrorist ass when the tourguide wanted to throw him off the bus. Given recent events, I should have just let them do it. Let Randy find his way out of the wilderness. And who knows? Maybe I’d do the same to you. The recent events haven’t exactly made me happy with you people. Your belief that a women should die carrying a dead fetus because she can’t get a doctor to take it out is truly sick. And now that a third of the doctors that would do it were killed last week, I’m not really happy with you freaks.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:30 am
Of course I should mention that Larison is also highly critical of the Armenians for embracing the Monophysite heresy. ugg classic cardy
June 4th, 2009 at 7:24 am
Matthew,
Thanks for linking to my story. I think the quick takeaway conclusion is that Lebanon is holding its freest election ever, and the party that seems to have the best shot at emerging with the largest number of seats happens to be allied with Hizbullah, while diverging rather sharply from it in ideology.
This is going to make for a very interesting couple of years, and foreign observers need to understand that opportunities for effective engagement could be missed if they stick to checkers, rather than chess.
Thanks again.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:15 am
So we’ve established that fostert hates Hindus, and now it appears he doesn’t like Armenians either.
Is there any ethnic group with which Muslims come in conflict that fostert likes?
June 4th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Hektor Bim,
No, I disagree. I disagree wih Fostert on many issues, but he is an interesting person, and I certainly don’t think he’s a run of the mill politically correct hipster Islamophile.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Fostert,
Actually, I support the right to abortion in cases of terminally damaged and nonviable fetuses, as well as when there is risk to the mother’s life. A dead fetus certainly counts as nonviable in my book.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:00 am
It seems to me that this is the type of issue that Americans are particularly vulnerable to confusion on simply because our politics doesn’t work that way. We have two parties, we’ve basically always had two parties, and while there are inter-party coalitions and periodic identity shake-ups obviously, the way we see things is binary. I figure places with parliamentary systems as a rule — even ones that operate very differently — understand these dynamics more naturally, even without better reporting or education.
Also, fostert — damn, dude.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Of course I should mention that Larison is also highly critical of the Armenians for embracing the Monophysite heresy. ugg classic cardy
The more I learn about Larison, the more I dislike him. No wonder he writes for Pat “Racist Karate Chop” Buchanan’s isolationist rag.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:42 am
I think there is an inherent fallacy in fostert’s reasoning on the Armenians. Turkey manifestly wasn’t the Armenian’s country, the Ottoman empire was. When the ruling clique decided to turn toward an ethnic Turkish orientation, which they then made explicit, the writing was on the wall for all the ethnic and especially religious minorities of Anatolia.
And that is precisely what happened. Through massacre, forced ethnic cleansing, forced assimiliation, the nascent Turkish state essentially eliminated all of its religious minorities and worked hard to extirpate the Kurds as well, though in that they have been less successful.
fostert hates religious minorities in states it seems, and ones who rebel deserve whatever they get.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
“fostert hates religious minorities in states it seems, and ones who rebel deserve whatever they get.”
That’s funny. I am a religious minority in my country. So no, I don’t hate them. I don’t have a problem with Armenians either. I have a problem with people who insist on special rights. And those that rebel either win or lose. But they can’t bitch about it after they lose. Rebel all you want, but don’t complain if you lose. And thanks, Hector, for sticking up for me. We disagree, but you know I respect you.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:26 am
[...] the opposition. But Hezbollah’s actual level of electoral support is unchanged. Instead, as I said the other day, the key player was Michael Aoun and his Free Patriotic Movement. Aoun, a Christian, had aligned [...]