Clear heavens, a brisk breeze, and happiness are my recollections of April 13 1975. We were a carefree group of university students picnicking in the northern mountains of Lebanon. Lebanese, Palestinians, Americans, Maronite, Shiites, and Sunnites basking in the sun, side by side with no worries or afterthoughts. Then we heard the news, and the world turned upside down and the saga seems never ending.
In 2005, after the 14th of March, I thought it was a new beginning and wrote the article Long-absent hope returns to Lebanon. The revolution failed.
In 2019, the 17 of October movement brought new hope. The movement seems to have failed again.
Today, it is all about Lebanon defaulting on it's debt and capital controls. A Cabinet of so called experts that seems to lead from behind, the rise of the culture of corruption, and the fall of the political class.
It is the ultimate erosion of the essence of Lebanon, once called the Switzerland or Paris of the Orient.
It looks like a downward trend towards the end of free economy and with it Freedom and Democracy.
Add to it Covid-19 and the saga continues, and hope seems far far away.
Copyright (c) 2005 The Daily Star |
|
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
|
Long-absent hope returns to Lebanon
|
|
|
By
Khatoun Haidar
Special to The Daily Star |
|
April 13, 1975, is a date that
represents, for most of us Lebanese who are above 45 years of age, a frontier
separating the often idealized Lebanon of before the war, and the
insufferable reality of after April 13. For the youth of Lebanon, April 13 is
just a controversial historical date. For them there is no dividing line;
they grew up in a Lebanon ravaged by war, still suffering the sequels of
occupation and a deep sectarian partition. A country where ambition is curbed
and hope scarce
This would have been a perfect
introductory paragraph to a piece commemorating April 13, if I was asked to
write it before February 14. Today I cannot ignore the change, the atmosphere
of revival, and the fact that more than half of the Lebanese population,
waving the flag, took to the streets in two peaceful demonstrations. I cannot
ignore the loud voice of the silent majority, and the strong participation of
women and the youth. I cannot disregard the sight of two women standing side
by side at Hariri's last resting place, one reading the Muslim prayer and the
other performing the sign of the cross. I cannot neglect the reaction of
defiance and the stress on national unity that followed four criminal
explosions that targeted Christian areas. One has often dreamed of renewal,
but never dared to imagine one. Today it is possible, the Lebanese people
just need to reach for it, and then maybe April 13, 2005 will be a new
frontier, that of the rebirth of Lebanon.
I am sure that many dismiss these signs
as emotional reactions, and insist that the situation is much more complex
than the popular mood. This is true in some way, yet it is not pure naivete
to observe the manifestations of discontent and to measure the pulse of the
population. Regimes that dismiss the well-being of their population by
imposing an iron-handed approach to governing do so at their own risk. In
fact, the mood of the Lebanese before and after the Hariri assassination
takes root in the political developments that followed the Taif Agreement.
The Lebanese civil war that started on
April 13, 1975 was officially ended on October 22, 1989, by the Arab League,
sponsoring the Taif Agreement. By then, the Lebanese were weary and tired
from a series of armed conflicts that at first took root in deep internal
divisions but then became regional in nature. The end of the armed conflict
did not bring the civil war to a real conclusion. There was no national
reconciliation effort on the popular level, and Israel maintained its
occupation of South Lebanon, which made the Syrian presence in Lebanon a de
facto reality that nobody could contest without seeming to side with the
enemy. Given this reality it would have been naive to expect the emergence of
an independent democratic Lebanon.
In theory, Taif restored to Lebanon its
Constitution, that guarantees freedoms and democracy. But under the pretext
of national security necessities the country was ruled for the last 15 years
by a false, imposed national consensus that destroyed accountability, the
prime basis of democracy. The choices of ministers became a reflection of
sectarian power centers and foreign intervention, resulting at all political
junctions in deadlock. The parliamentary institution lost its meaning when
deputies started falling in line when it came to the ministerial vote of
confidence or presidential elections, whatever their previously declared
positions. People felt powerless and many gave up on the electoral system.
Then in the year 2000, the South was
liberated from Israeli occupation, and there was hope in the air, but soon it
became clear that the status quo was here to stay, and that the country was
sinking deeper under Syrian control. The signs of an organized effort to
erode the few remaining liberties became more pronounced. This demise of
democracy was exacerbated by a deep feeling of isolation as the international
community showed a total lack of concern. The sense of hopelessness became
stronger and young people had only one dream: leave the country.
Buried under this hopelessness was
anger. The anger exploded when Hariri was assassinated. People took
peacefully to the streets, the prime minister resigned, and the international
community started paying attention. Out of it came a feeling of empowerment
and hope.
For me this hope is embodied in the
commune-like freedom tents in the middle of Beirut. There you find hundreds
of youth of all religious sects that have been living there since the Hariri
assassination. They organize daily activities under strict rules of behavior
and you often find students from opposing parties communicating, building a
basis for national reconciliation. School children visit and try to
understand. The hope is that this generation, whatever happens, will never
forget this experience.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment