Hezbollah the Beacon!

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Lebanon's Politics Gives Hezbollah Power
Ibrahim Zabad | 25 Aug 2006
World Politics Watch Exclusive

Amid the shattered dreams of a grand transformation, Lebanon, a land fabled for its vulnerability to foreign intervention, offered an opportunity, a deliverance from the troubles that have afflicted U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Since at least 1990, Syria had established dominion in Lebanon and rendered it a base for all sorts of pro-Syrian militant organizations -- Palestinian and Lebanese, secular and fundamentalist. Many Lebanese were not happy with the Syrian order, and the opportunity for change came with the assassination of the former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri on March 14, 2005.

Hariri was a man with a vision for his country: retrieving the lost glory of the days when Lebanon had been a cosmopolitan center for Arab finance and commerce, a land of genuine pluralism, open-mindedness and tolerance. His vision clashed with that of the Syrian regime, and his assassination unleashed anger that had been simmering for years against the Syrian order.

Waves of demonstrators swept into the streets and a revolution was ushered in. It was a historic moment for Lebanon and for the United States, which was desperately searching for good news from the Middle East. Lebanon seemed a divine gift. The United States vigorously supported the anti-Syrian forces, which eventually succeeded in liberating Lebanon from the Syrian grip. A new American era, it seemed, had descended on Lebanon.

The Obstacle: Hezbollah

The Americans could claim a great success. They even gave the revolution its name: the "Cedars Revolution" after the famed tree that adorns the Lebanese flag. But there remained a formidable obstacle to Lebanon becoming a showcase of the American drive to reshape the Middle East: Hezbollah.

That has not changed. After the guns fell silent on Aug. 14, it was clear Hezbollah remained an organization with the capacity to disrupt American objectives. The outcome of the war seems nebulous. No side can claim a decisive victory; probably, it is a draw. However, the American dream of transforming Lebanon into a showcase of democracy and presenting it as a vindication of their larger Middle East policy appears shattered by the cruel, intractable reality of Lebanese politics. Despite the power of Israel's military offensive, the fox will remain in the henhouse.

In a speech broadcast on Hezbollah's Al Manar satellite television on Aug. 3, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah gave notice to those who were listening: Whatever the outcome of the war, he said, Lebanon will not be in America's orbit or become "part of the new Middle East."

Lebanon's Political System

This might sound like so much bluster, but American policy makers should take notice. Nasrallah was referring to Hezbollah's capacity to exercise a veto not only on the decisions of the Lebanese government but also on the character of Lebanon. This is not only a result of the military strength of Hezbollah: It is the very nature of the Lebanese political system.

Since its creation in the early twentieth century, Lebanon has been a fragile and vulnerable country, a multiconfessional polity whose stability is based on consensus. It is not suited for autocracy and could not be made so. Nor is it a full-blown democracy where the majority rules. Lebanon is a consociational democracy where consensus among the various Lebanese sects constitutes the heart and soul of its political order, and any meddling with this fragile system might tear the country apart.

Within this system, the Shia of Lebanon make up between 35 percent and 40 percent of the population and Hezbollah, along with its close ally, the Amal movement, holds a monopoly on the Shiite representation in the state. This is what Nasrallah meant when he said Lebanon would never become an American ally. He is perfectly aware of the intricacies of Lebanese politics and of the Shiite place in it. It is not possible to change the character of Lebanon without the consent and approval of the Shiite community, regardless of the military capacities of Hezbollah. An outright military defeat would not have changed those facts.

Hezbollah remains very confident of its monopoly over the representation of the Shiite community. No serious contender could possibly emerge now and, remember, wars drown out moderate voices. Degrading the military power of Hezbollah will not have a noticeable bearing on its political power; the opposite might even be true. A wounded Hezbollah might further radicalize a humiliated community and polarize it around its leadership. Hezbollah does not derive its sweeping popularity solely from its military muscle but also from its vast network of social services that the historically weak Lebanese state can't match.

Therefore, any hope to change Hezbollah's power over the Shiite community depends on a long-term social and cultural transformation, for which the United States does not seem to have the patience.

The United States' Flawed Assumption

After the deep and intense U.S. involvement in the bloodletting, it is beyond doubt that the current conflict was never about a simple response to the abduction of two Israeli soldiers across the blue line. Israel had limited objectives: settle scores with Hezbollah, demonstrate its military superiority to bolster future deterrence, and assert its hegemony in the region. For the United States, a lot more was at stake: reviving and vindicating its faltering Middle East policy.

But the nebulous outcome of the war is now further evidence of the overreach of recent U.S. policy in the Middle East.

From day one, the United States framed the conflict as part of its broader campaign against global terrorism and its policy of regime transformation in the Middle East. Lebanon was declared a new front in the war on terrorism. Therefore, the success of the American policy of supporting the war was contingent on the capacity to effect domestic changes in Lebanon that favor American plans.

There were those who hoped that a military defeat of Hezbollah and the devastation visited upon the Shiite community would convince the Shia of Lebanon of the futility of supporting the militant group. However, not only did the popularity of Hezbollah swell in the Arab world and its leader become an icon of Arab resistance, but the bloodied and embattled Shiite community has become more radicalized and more supportive of Hezbollah.

Thus, Hezbollah will retain its monopoly over the representation of the Shia in Lebanon and will retain a veto on the character of the political processes. The nature of the Lebanese political system precludes any grand transformation: Lebanon, as a minimum, will remain contested terrain.

Ibrahim Zabad, a native of Lebanon, is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of California-Davis.
http://worldpoliticswatch.com/article.aspx?id=138

Hezbollah has established itself as the beacon!