BEIRUT: The emergence of the Hezbollah-led March 8 alliance and the rival March 14 coalition in 2005 has since plunged Lebanon into political turmoil and sectarian divisions with far-reaching effects on the country’s volatile security and stability, analysts said Thursday.
Furthermore, the political and sectarian schism has been deepened by the repercussions of the upheavals currently roiling the region, particularly the negative fallout of the 4-year-old war in Syria on Lebanon’s security and stability, they said.
“The March 8 and March 14 alliances are responsible for the state of divisions and fragmentation in Lebanon. Since the two camps were born 10 years ago, the country has been in the throes of a sharp political crisis due to the rival parties’ regional commitment,” Abdallah Bou Habib, Lebanon’s former ambassador to the United States, told The Daily Star.
“Because the two parties have regional friendships, commitments and allies, this has prevented them from giving priority to Lebanese interests,” said Bou Habib, also the director of the Issam Fares Center for Lebanon, a Beirut-based think tank.
Bou Habib and other analysts said the fierce power struggle between the March 8 and March 14 blocs was largely at the root of the country’s many woes.
“The March 8 and March 14 political differences have led to the vacuum in the presidency and extension of Parliament’s mandate, brought Parliament legislation to paralysis and led to caretaker governments in some cases,” he said.
Sami Nader, a professor of economics and international relations at the Universite St. Joseph, praised the creation of the March 8 and March 14 parties as “a healthy sign” and “a pillar of democracy” in line with the country’s democratic system.
“But the main problem is the absence of any political platform between the two sides to serve the purpose of state building,” Nader told The Daily Star.
“Differences between the March 8 and March 14 parties have led to the failure of reaching a strong united state,” said Nader, also the director of the Levant Institute for Strategic Affairs, a Beirut-based think tank.
“The two sides are currently at odds over the country’s foreign and defense policies, a new electoral law, the need to elect a new president and the project to build a united state,” he added. “This in addition to the March 8 and March 14 disputes over the conflict in Syria, Hezbollah’s weapons, tackling the Syrian refugee crisis and the government security plan.”
Noting that each of the March 8 and March 14 blocs comprised politicians from various Muslim and Christian sects, “thus transcending in form the sectarian disease,” Nader said the two sides remained in disagreement over key issues.
“The creation of the March 14 coalition, an alliance by necessity, was in response to the March 8 movement and rejected the Syrian-Iranian hegemony over Lebanon,” Nader said. “The March 14 movement opposed Lebanon’s alignment with the Syrian-Iranian axis.”
The 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri triggered a mass anti-Syria popular uprising in Downtown Beirut in March 2005, known as the Cedar Revolution. The March 14 alliance, a coalition of parties that takes its name from the uprising, is still struggling for Lebanon’s freedom, sovereignty and independence.
The coalition, led by former Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s Future Movement, stands in opposition to the Hezbollah-led March 8 alliance, which draws its name from a counter-demonstration held on March 8, 2005, in Downtown Beirut to thank Syria for its military and political role in Lebanon.
The Syrian army, under massive local and international pressure, was forced to withdraw from Lebanon in April 2005, ending nearly three decades of Syria’s domination of its smaller neighbor.
This month marked the 10th anniversary of the birth of the March 8 and March 14 alliances while Lebanon remains sharply divided politically between the rival pro- and anti-Syrian camps.
The inter-Lebanese split has been exacerbated by the negative impact of regional divisions, particularly the emergence of an Arab Gulf alliance led by Saudi Arabia against an Iranian-Syrian coalition.
Regional turmoil, particularly long-simmering rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which back opposing sides in Lebanon, has been blamed for the delay in the election of a new Lebanese president. Saudi Arabia backs the March 14 coalition while Iran supports the March 8 alliance.
Also, the 10th anniversary of the March 8 and March 14 parties comes as the Lebanese Army is locked in an open battle against Syria-based jihadis threatening to destabilize Lebanon.
Mouna Fayyad, a writer and a psychology professor at the state-run Lebanese University, sounded pessimistic about putting an end to divisions in Lebanon while the region was on the boil.
“I don’t see a solution soon to current tensions and the state of fragmentation in Lebanon as long as the region remains in wars and turmoil and as long as Lebanon remains a card in the hands of others,” Fayyad told The Daily Star.
In order for Lebanon to emerge from the current intense political alignment between the March 8 and March 14 blocs, Fayyad said, “this requires the election of a new president and the presidency should not be subservient to outside powers and its decisions should be made inside the country.”
A harsh critic of Iran and Hezbollah, Fayyad, a Shiite, lamented that the March 14 movement, which was launched 10 years ago with noble objectives, has failed to achieve anything at all of its famous slogan: Freedom, sovereignty and independence.
“Where is sovereignty in a country that has been left without a president for nearly 10 months and its borders are open?” she asked.
Fayyad said Iran, through Hezbollah and MP Michel Aoun’s bloc, which have been boycotting Parliament sessions to elect a president since last April, is obstructing the presidential vote.
She contended that Hezbollah’s military intervention in Syria had fueled sectarian tensions in Lebanon. “This is a party with a sectarian and confessional character. Its actions have led to a feeling of suppression among the Sunni community in Lebanon,” Fayyad said, adding: “Iran is the main instigator of the Sunni-Shiite conflict in the region.”
In the absence of an alternative force to the March 8 and March 14 blocs, Bou Habib called for pursuing the ongoing dialogue between the Future Movement and Hezbollah.
“Perhaps, this dialogue can reach an agreement on the qualifications of the new president,” he said. He added that the March 8 and March 14 parties should also help ease internal tensions by “reducing the negative impact of their foreign commitments on Lebanon.”
Nader, the USJ professor, said he expected the emergence of a new political elite to do away with the acute political alignment between the March 8 and March 14 camps plaguing the country.
“Lebanon is poised for a renewal of political leadership that should have a coherent political nonsectarian project with promises of a bigger role for women in the country’s political life,” Nader said.
He said the current political class, both March 8 and March 14, has renewed the Parliament’s mandate twice, while leaving the country without a president for nearly 300 days, in addition to paralyzing Parliament legislation. “To end the current political divisions, a peaceful popular revolt, probably backed by foreign powers, is needed to transcend the March 8 and March 14 parties and create a new Cedar revolution,” he said.
Nader blamed regional turmoil and what he termed March 14 leaders’ “big mistakes” for the coalition’s failure to achieve its declared goals of “Freedom, sovereignty and independence.”
No comments:
Post a Comment