It will be a while before Lebanon has a new government and it seems that you decided to become irrelevant in your country's future. According to several observers, you are apparently a kingmaker though, and with all due respect, you are no such thing. For a kingmaker must either be a potential ruler himself or, at least, espouse impeccable nationalist credentials that withstand the tests of time and circumstances.
As one leader in the Druze community, the best you can aspire to is to remain the chief of a challenged fiefdom, although short-term gains may certainly come your way. One wonders what is the meaning of your self-emasculation, and how long will it be before you change your mind again? How are we to evaluate your own words and deeds?
Imagine everyone's surprise when you recently declared: "The Progressive Socialist Party will stand firm in support of Syria and the Resistance." While an Omani is expected to love his nation, or an Emirati be devoted to the UAE, likewise a Lebanese must put his country first. One must thus speculate whether your justifiable survival instincts clarify your nationalism given your assertion that you were with Syria. Who do you think your late father shed his blood for?
Inasmuch as you also stated that you were with the resistance, one must further query whether you approve of Hezbollah's long-term objective to transform Lebanon into what it cannot possibly become, a pro-Iranian confrontation state. In the event, Hezbollah denies any role in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, though repeated declarations that the tribunal is serving US and Israeli interests are allegorical.
Your own description of the tribunal as "a tool for destruction" highlights confusion, rather than a carefully vetted statement, for you know that no Lebanese Government can cancel Security Council decisions.
Further divisions
Moreover, and this must also be reiterated, Hezbollah is using you to appoint a Sunni candidate for the post of Prime Minister that cannot but further divide the country. Do you have any doubts that Najeeb Mikati will forever carry a noose around his neck, and never be allowed to make a single independent decision?
For a quarter century, Hezbollah claimed that it would not use arms on the domestic front, although it did precisely that in 2008. At the time, the party's significant military losses were recorded at the hands of Druze warriors in the Chouf Mountains.
Inasmuch as that attempted coup d'état failed, because everyone rejected any tinkering with the 1943 National Charter, things are different today. It seems that Michel Aoun cannot abandon his perpetual quest for the presidency.
Still, it may be useful to ponder the Saudi foreign minister's recent affirmation that Lebanon was headed for a Sudan-option. Once your latest decision is translated into an effective political instrument, the opposition will end up controlling both parliament and the premiership, which will only leave the presidency outside of its control.
Regrettably, because Michel Sulaiman is a pro-Syrian product, replacing him through an impeachment will not be difficult. This will allow Aoun to move to Baabda even if that will mean the end of the Republic as we know it.
No one should then be surprised that the country is divided, with Syria permanently reclaiming the Bekaa Valley and Israel swallowing the South, which will require the expulsion of most of its inhabitants a la Palestine in 1948. Therefore, while you saved your own neck, you placed Lebanon and Michel Sulaiman, in clear danger.
Dear Walid Bayk,
Your recent pronouncements reminded me of the famous Burke oratory delivered 226 years ago (on February 28, 1785 to be precise), during the trial of the then Governor-General of India, Warren Hastings. Edmund Burke, the Anglo-Irish statesman and philosopher best known for his unsurpassed Reflections on the Revolution in France, a manifesto that defended conservative ideas and rejected any revolution's divinely-chosen aristocratic powers to a heartless and incompetent elite, argued for impeachment.
Warren Hastings was then charged with oppressing natives and argued in his defence that his actions could not be considered illegal because he had been granted arbitrary powers in India.
Burke, who hated injustice, replied:
"My lords, … Mr. Hastings has declared his opinion that he is a despotic prince; that he is to use arbitrary power. … The East India Company have not arbitrary power to give him; the king has no arbitrary power to give him; your lordships have not; nor the Commons; nor the whole Legislature. We have no arbitrary power to give, because arbitrary power is a thing which neither any man can hold nor any man can give. … This arbitrary power is not to be had by conquest. Nor can any sovereign have it by succession; for no man can succeed to fraud, rapine, and violence. Those who give and those who receive arbitrary power are alike criminal …
You, Dear Walid Bayk, have no arbitrary power to give either, and only time will tell whether your most recent choices will accelerate Prince Saud Al Faisal's prophetic predictions.
Dr Joseph A. Kechichian is a commentator and author of several books on Gulf affairs.
