Both local and international actors are struggling to reach the finish line of the Lebanese race, that is, to find a way out of the Lebanese labyrinth. Some are running in circles, while others have stood still. In the Lebanese context, even standing still is a skill. In fact, it is a skill that some local players have mastered. They have become adept at using this tactic to weasel their way into their desired destination and distract their rivals, doing so even in the most challenging of circumstances. Indeed, they deploy this tactic even when their political system or their political entity is under threat.
Most of them are betting that some enemies - and even some friends - will stumble along the way, as the competitors do not necessarily have to reach the finish line collectively. While Lebanon’s consociational democracy is meant to ensure that everyone gets to the exit, there is always a winner - someone always finishes first.
Since the presidential seat was vacated, Paris has forced itself into the Lebanese labyrinth, becoming a local player despite its strong standing within the Quintet Committee. And since the Lebanese parties undercut its initial plans, it has been searching for an emergency exit that allows it to access its historic role of facilitating solutions after having become part of the problem. Despite his erudite understanding of Lebanon and the region, France’s new/old envoy, former Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, is still betting on appeasement through dialogue as a solution to the Lebanese quagmire. The problem with this strategy is that it is Lebanon’s political system that is in crisis, not its authorities.
Le Drian returns to Beirut carrying an invitation to dialogue, seemingly among leadership figures of the second rank. The goal is to look into how the presidential vacuum could be filled, not by putting names forward, but criteria. However, Speaker Berri, who considers dialogue the strongest tool in his possession and constantly calls for it from his seat as speaker, did not acknowledge this request. Thus, in this new labyrinth, some parties reject the dialogue that Speaker Berri called for in parliament because the “Duo” (Hezbollah and Amal Movement) have set its conditions and agenda, with its insistence on nominating former minister Suleiman Franjieh being the main sticking point.
On the other hand, another dialogue, this time at the Pine Residence (the residence of the French ambassador in Beirut), is being anticipated. While it seems that the terms of the potential Pine Residence talks are not an impediment, the location alone is enough for some parties to consider it futile.
And so, the first question that the beleaguered domestic front and the French envoy must answer is this: What is the point of calling for dialogue given the failure to agree on neither the venue nor the agenda? Is the goal to reach an agreement on who will become the next president of the country or for it to give rise to a comprehensive settlement? In either case, the domestic actors are not capable of filling the presidential seat at this stage, nor are the foreign players clearly keen on doing so, especially since a Lebanese party with regional affiliations remains unwilling to backtrack on its demands.
Indeed, Hezbollah is betting on external developments strengthening its cards on the negotiating table: the talks, be they direct or indirect, between Tehran and Washington in Muscat, and the border demarcation agreement between Lebanon and Israel. Both could allow Hezbollah to substantially add to its gains, which it seeks to reinforce and calls “guarantees.”
The second question posed to those calling for dialogue for its own sake is more challenging. The Lebanese gridlock now threatens the configuration of the Lebanese political system, i.e., the “framework” that Paris engineered when Lebanon was its mandate. The content - not the form - of this framework is under threat. Despite all its attempts to provide assurances that it is committed to the Taif Agreement, Hezbollah - a rising ruling force - is undermining the constitution and institutions with its arsenal and aggressive maneuvering.
On the other side, the influence of the force that founded the Lebanese state as a political entity has waned. This force has begun to demand a federal system as they vie to maintain what remains of their autonomy. It is obvious some Lebanese communities seek limited secession from the central government, which is dominated by Hezbollah’s arsenal. Despite all the reassurances that the Hezbollah Secretary-General tried to give in his latest speech on Wednesday, changing their mind will prove a difficult task.
