أرشيف موقع العهد الإخباري من 1999-2018
ارشيف من : 2005-2008
Ruling Team Has Chance to be Patriotic ..Opposition: Gives Chance without Being Negligent
greater majority. Let us controversially say that this was true at a certain period that was familiar to everyone. However, does this allegation remain existent or is the reality quite the opposite?
Answering this question is not difficult. Let us examine in detail some of the political facts:
One: This government was given birth by the true majority because it rose at a time when there was a quartet agreement or alliance. Sooner than later, this alliance collapsed causing this government lose its main quality as being a simple government of majority and a government of accordance.
Two: The map of the political forces with their allotments differs nowadays from that of the time when this government was formed. The equation at present is renowned: there are two majorities which represent two main sects of the sects that poetize the political and social structure in Lebanon. These two majorities are ringed by a diversity of political forces of great size with great political representation.
On the other bank, there is what looks like a sectarian majority that made alliance with sectarian fragments here and there.
In summary, the political, public and sectarian symmetry of power flows in favor of the opposition, not the authority.
Three: the ruling team in the authority keeps trying helplessly to escape from the reality that its subjective alliance with the Israeli entity and US program in the region obliges it to pay the bill for the failure of this program as well as pay the bill for its lost gamble on the Israeli enemy’s success in achieving the aims of its aggression on Lebanon.
Based on the aforementioned points, does the Saniora government remain democratic or is it now a simple form of the democratic forms that are similar to the ruling régimes in the region?
One can not doubt the fact that the ruling team’s persistence in monopolizing the governmental decisions and regime automatically means that they only care for power and nothing but power; and that this ruling team keeps turning a blind eye to the social, public and political situation in the country, hence, placing itself in a challenging position against this overwhelming majority, after which it blames the opposition for waving its “take to the street” card. The ruling team does not or perhaps does realize that if the opposition does not seek this necessary choice then it neither qualifies to represent the public majority in Lebanon nor qualifies to form its guarantee to impose the required will for change.
In all cases, no one expects that the ruling team will give up the present government easily, hence, recognizes that the opposition has the right to claim its guaranteeing third. This team is fully aware that the US support lurks in the fact that it can, from a position of a majority, pass that which Washington seeks at anytime. But it can only do so if the real terms of participation are available in the authoritative decision. Hence, the opposition being present to take part in the decisions stems from its caution that the decision be patriotic and to provide the real patriotic interests to the Lebanese people. Instead, the ruling team keeps playing political games of high interest political debts. This may render Lebanon lie more and more under the international suzerainty (particularly the US), and will involve it in the battles of Washington’s plans in the region, which the public called: the moving anarchy.
The ruling team’s plan to monopolize the decisions is very clear:
One: questing to prolong the deliberation meetings as long as possible, knowing that time is crucial with respect to the opposition, and that it is betting on more international and regional merits.
Two: wanting to display a kind of formal deliberation that will not lead to the actual participation of the opposition in the political decisions, as if the opposition is seeking a powerful position. The opposition, instead, seeks to be present as an observer with a patriotic conscience that can help the government adopt patriotic decisions with excellence without being involved in the political contexts that only care to give the US the required stances and decisions in exchange for maintaining authority.
Three: attempting to divert attention to other areas of the problem by linking the demand for a governmental change to the presidential issue or to the international court or the 1701 resolution; as if he who thwarts these peoples’ efforts is the opposition, not the side and the way which this ruling team employ to deal with these cases! In fact, they are thwarting the presidential chair after which they attack president Lahoud for being no longer efficient! And they are seeking to place the international court in the context of blackmailing Syria and several figures of the opposition in order to take from them that which they could not take by force and pressure with their attempts to topple the Syrian regime, particularly from inside! In addition, all parties have agreed to the principle of the court, but the disagreement remains linked to the details that can be transformed into a tool of political blackmail or an instrument that will reveal the truth and achieve justice.
On the other hand, they want to elasticize resolution 1701 and divert from its essence whereas find in it that which does not exist, issues which Washington and Tel Aviv are demanding.
Four: conducting a campaign to frighten the people regarding the consequences of taking to the street in an attempt to weaken their lines and frustrate their morale, hence, minimize the strength of their outburst, which would minimize the volume and quality of the participation to cause great damage to the opposition.
Five: adopting or announcing preparedness to begin a series of security measures that may minimize the magnitude of the public participation or prevent this participation from being existent in the places where such existence can create a pressure with more strength and density that will force the government to resign.
Six: insinuating to seek refuge again at the international community, the same US, in order to attract new decisions that can protect the present government and prolong the age of the ruling team.
All these issues are now clear and familiar. The opposition can deal with them, but it still wants to give the ruling team a chance to return to its conscience and homeland, hoping it will discard the tribal traditions that rule its political behavior, especially the traditions of seeking vengeance, invasion and robbery. The opposition is cautiously giving a chance to the ruling team because this is the logic of the nations and the logic of history.
Al-Intiqad 1188, 2006-11-10
Author: Mustafa El-Haj Ali