Lebanon is an ancient country. Its history dates back thousands of years, a land that has been occupied by Assyrians, Phoenicians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Umayyads, Mamluks, and the Ottomans.
Yet the hope for an independent Lebanon has survived all these occupiers. No wonder Lebanon is mentioned over seventy times in the Bible, including by the Prophet Isaiah: “Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest?" (29:17)
Reaching that "fruitful field" of a sovereign independent state remains a difficult task. It is, of course, true that Lebanon was recognized as a country in 1920 and given its independence in 1943 when a national entente was formed. However, there was no binding agreement or consensus concerning the constitutional make-up of the Lebanese state. As a result, the country’s long struggle for governance ensued, and that struggle continues today. Lebanon exists on the map and in the heart of many citizens, but control of the state remains in flux, with deleterious consequences for Lebanese society as a whole.
There have been repeated efforts to build a Lebanese nation-state, the first of which took place in the "Golden Age" of the 1950s, under the presidency of Camille Chamoun (1952-1958). Lebanon enjoyed stability, remarkable development and economic growth, making it a role model for the countries of the Middle East. It was even labelled the “Switzerland of the East,” peaceful, boasting a robust financial sector, and an apparent harmony among the several ethno-religious communities. Even Singapore looked to Lebanon for expertise. Yet as Chamoun’s term in office came to an end, disturbances emerged that bode ill for the future of the nation. His successor, General Fouad Chehab, entered with an ambitious reform program, but he had to compromise on its implementation, due to domestic troubles.
In the late sixties, Lebanon appeared to be back on track economically, but political instability followed the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and the ensuing “Cairo Agreement." Brokered by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, the agreement legitimized the presence of Palestinian guerillas in southern Lebanon. Those forces would be a central element in the Civil War of the next decade.
The Civil War that erupted in 1975 derailed Lebanon’s history. It caused major demographic changes, leaving deep fears, concerns and distrust among the different religious communities, and ending the viability of national political parties. National secular parties were replaced by sectarian formations. Meanwhile the emigration of the elites began, a process that raises questions about the future viability of the nation. That self-exile of educated personnel and the professional class continues today.
1975 marked a catastrophic turn for Lebanon, as all attempts, local and regional, to stop the war failed. The political gap between Lebanese of all sects expanded in a toxic atmosphere of distrust leading to the emergence of armed militias within the various communities. The 1982 Israeli invasion complicated those political differences, while the deteriorating situation created an environment ripe for the conflicting militias to thrive. The war also enabled the two major regional players, Iran and Iraq, to gain influence in the country, joining the existing Syrian and Israeli players. The West, especially the US, responded to terrorist attacks that caused numerous fatalities by withdrawing from Lebanon, thus ceding the region to Iran and Syria and exposing the country to further conflicts and wars.
In 1989 the Taif Agreement signed in Saudi Arabia succeeded in putting an end to the war and producing a new Constitution and a National Reconciliation movement with the help of the Vatican, the United Nations and most of the Arab countries. That accord represented a further attempt to build a nation-state, to be based on the implementation of the new Constitution and all the related reforms, including a disarming of all the militia. Hezbollah has not yet complied with that condition. In addition, regional conflicts interfered with the prospect for progress in Lebanon. The Iraq-Kuwait war of 1991 reshuffled the regional and international priorities: to keep Damascus in Washington's camp required subcontracting the Lebanese crisis to Syria: another state in control?
With Syria in charge, Lebanon reverted to the familiar tools of militias to manage the crisis, as a bad alternative to implementing the Constitution stipulated by the Taif Accords. Therefore the 1992 parliamentary elections, which ignored Taif, were advantageous to the militias. The elections opened the door to legislative and executive power for militias and for Hizbullah, in particular. In addition, monopolies were reestablished, and an economic system took shape that was dominated by organized corruption. One notoriously successful businessman, Rafiq Hariri, was essential to creating an economic illusion, keeping the Lebanese busy with the illusions of their bubble, while their country was being systemically looted by the militias and their patrons. Hizbullah took advantage of that optical illusion of a “growing economy” and focused on building its military, political and financial power. Furthermore, the Israeli withdrawal in 2000 from Lebanon was considered a victory for Hizbullah, augmenting its power in the internal political scene. Suddenly Hizbullah came to overshadow all other political players, presenting itself as the indispensable arbiter.
In February 2005, the assassination of Rafiq Hariri ended the economic bubble, reset the local and regional political game and left the country saddled with huge debts. Eventually Hizbullah filled the vacuum caused by the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon and became the new guardian. A year later, Israel again invaded Lebanon, causing major destruction to its infrastructure. Those two successive blows were enough to announce the beginning of the end of the country’s economy and kept investors away. Throughout all this, the mafia-like system that had created ruling militias - “Almanzouma," المنظومة-including all confessional parties from extreme left to extreme right, the most powerful of which was Iran's proxy, continued to thrive. Electoral laws that violated the Constitution and national reconciliation were maintained by the parties that had a vested interest in perpetuating a crony-dominated system of government.
Increasingly many Lebanese banks became a constitutive part of the growing corruption. They offered high interest rates by lending depositors’ money to the Central Bank which was, in turn, lending money to the government or, rather, the Almanzouma. And of course, a totally corrupt Almanzouma, in addition to the continuously looted money, was spending the depositors’ money. Money laundering was ubiquitous. In 2014, the corrupt class succeeded in delaying the disclosure of the Ponzi Scheme by a certain “financial engineering” that was invented by the Central Bank’s Governor Riad Salame, whose presidential ambitions put him in the service of Almanzouma.
In October 2016, the election of Michel Aoun as President, a man who had built his reputation on fighting corruption and implementing reforms, gave hope to some of the Lebanese. But Aoun, known as Hizbullah’s man, was a major disappointment to the large majority of the Lebanese; he joined the club of Almanzouma and became known for his famous “they didn’t let us do anything”.
On October 17, 2019, the moment of truth arrived. People poured into the streets to object to the increasingly unbearable cost of living and the sudden total shutdown of the whole economy. Yet worse was still to come. A catastrophic explosion hit Beirut’s seaport on August 4, 2020 and destroyed a quarter of the city. The blast was the result of a mixture of lawlessness, irresponsibility and corruption. Hundreds lost their lives, thousands were wounded and the cost of the destruction totaled in billions of dollars.
Today we face a surreal Lebanon, a Lebanon we could have never imagined even in our worst nightmares. The only positive aspect is that the events of Oct 17 and Aug 4 may still provide the impetus for radical change. Yet the elections of May 2022 produced no decisive outcome, rigged as they were by the Almanzouma.
As of this writing, Lebanon is in an existential crisis. Its cultural identity and its regional and international roles are in danger. Lebanon is being cut off from the mainstream of human civilization, a failed state, and it is on the verge of losing its distinctive character, its particular mix of cultural groups and religions that once defined the country.
The parliament held the eighth session in order to elect a president without any success. The Almanzouma members are trying to invent a new president who will protect their interest, a president who would be willing to amend the actual Constitution or even replace it by a new one that meets their agendas. Lebanon is still nominally on paper a constitutional republic: this may not last unless the right leadership steps forward.
Lebanon is in urgent need of a president who works for the people, a president who believes in implementing, fully and not selectively, the new constitution based on the Taif Accords and all the bylaws.
Serious and effective actions on the national and international level are needed urgently. Such actions should aim at establishing an authentic, proper, and stable democracy and to eliminate all monopolies, and thereby provide a decent living for all Lebanese in a free and sound economic system with jobs and equal opportunity for all.
Any settlement among the confessional parties, distributing power on the basis of religious communities, will come at the expense of the unified homeland, our "Watan." Instead, implementing the Constitution bequeathed by Taif will yield a sense of belonging to a single homeland to which we owe patriotic loyalty, regardless of religion, and a confidence that cannot be secured except by an independent judiciary which, as of now, does not exist.
Once a state of law is in place, Lebanon will be capable of rebuilding and making itself ready to play its role of being “a message,” a model of the coexistence of different faith traditions, and a space displaying the possibility of a continuous dialogue between religions and civilizations, from which the whole world could learn.
Can Lebanon be turned again into a fruitful field as predicted by the Prophet Isaiah?
Hassan el Husseini is an oil and gas consultant and co-founder of "Project Watan--For a Humane Homeland."
