Lebanon’s protests and obsession with media
Diana Moukalled/Al Arabiya/September 09/15
“If reporters leave, God knows what they would do to us.” That was a common expression during live coverage of Lebanese youths protesting against the country’s political system under the slogan “You Stink.” One could sense real fear, which was sometimes exaggerated, of a confrontation between protestors and security forces if media outlets were not present to cover it. Lebanese activists seemed worried about experiencing the same thing as protesters in Arab Spring countries, particularly after witnessing several Lebanese security forces’ heavy-handedness against them. In just a few days, Lebanon’s activists exhausted most means of mobilization and communication that protesters in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and Yemen resorted to. They even tried to add to them.
It became clear that their biggest worry was the absence of media coverage. This is understandable when looking at what happened in other countries in the past four years. In Syria, for example, the regime prevented media coverage of protests from day one, and banned Western and Arab press. It then cracked down on protests, and tortured and killed citizens, reassured that there was no press coverage. Syrians thus used their smart phones to inform the world of what was happening to them. In Lebanon, protest organizers have since day one been aware of the importance of media coverage In Egypt, activists and opposition figures struggle to break the official media siege that they thought ended after the revolution, only to realize four years later that it has further tightened and that, in the best-case scenario, it has ingratiated itself with the authorities. The same applies to Libya and Yemen.
Media influence
In Lebanon, protest organizers have since day one been aware of the importance of media coverage, whether in its traditional or modern form. The movement has also benefitted from relative freedom in the country. Perhaps the strongest aspect of the movement is the bold slogans rejecting all Lebanese leaders via banners, graffiti and chants. There were, however, attempts to prevent including certain politicians, such as Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, in protest slogans. One of the important slogans is “Everyone means everyone,” indicating the desire for a new political category outside the March 8 and March 14 coalitions.
However, awareness of the importance of media coverage requires further consideration. The media gave the movement a platform, but some outlets resorted to exaggeration. Divisions dominate the Lebanese media, and all political parties suspect the movement’s motives. Media coverage has thus been divided between support for and suspicion of the protests. As such, depending too much on the media is a double-edged sword
Hezbollah vs. YouStink
Hanin Ghaddar/Now Lebanon/September 09/15
When social demands move to the political sphere/So far, the #YouStink — or the garbage uprising — in Lebanon has focused its goals on four simple demands: that Environment Minister Mohammad Machnouk step down, that an eco-friendly waste management plan be established, that those responsible for the heavy-handed suppression of the peaceful protest in August be held accountable, and that parliamentary elections according to a new electoral law be held. In terms of demands, all this sounds straightforward and unchallenging to the Lebanese political scene or status quo. To many observers, this campaign seems more hurtful to March 14 than March 8 because it primarily targets the environment and interior ministers — both of whom are close to March 14 —while ignoring the issues of Hezbollah’s arms and its interference in the war in Syria.
The movement decided to focus on the garbage crisis and corruption, so it’s true that Hezbollah is not being directly targeted. But the vibrancy and determination with which the street has criticized everyone in the government and parliament has started to bother the Party of God, and Hezbollah will eventually hit the movement for a number of reasons.
Hezbollah, #YouStink too
First, Hezbollah does not want to disrupt the status quo. The presidential vacuum, the inefficiency of the government and the incompetence of the current parliament make a perfect framework for the party to continue their war in Syria unimpeded. The ineffectiveness of the state empowers Hezbollah and boosts its control over institutions and all decision-making. Changing this would mean that Hezbollah will have to deal with a different and more challenging situation — something they’d rather not address before their role in Syria comes to a happy conclusion. Second, this movement aspires to the concept of citizenship and a citizen’s right to services and free speech.
Hezbollah fears the Lebanese citizen because it would mean that Shiites would also become citizens and not followers of its Iranian agenda, and certainly not fodder for its war against the ‘Sunni takfiri.’ Citizenship means that the state and its institutions are encouraged to be stronger. A citizen will demand sovereignty and independence of the state. A citizen will eventually disrupt the sectarian system that all political leaders trade on, including Hezbollah. A citizen will question them all and hold everyone accountable. A citizen will demand transparency. Hezbollah doesn’t want that. Hezbollah isn’t just part of the sectarian system; it is the most powerful part of that system.
Third, Hezbollah is also corrupt — from espionage rings within its ranks, trafficking counterfeit medication, and manufacture and sale of amphetamines to the infamous billion-dollar scheme by Salah Ezzedine, whose victims were mostly Hezbollah members. These are just examples of the corruption within Hezbollah’s ranks, not to mention the corruption of its allies. Fourth, Hezbollah subjugates free speech. Countless Lebanese journalists, writers and artists have been threatened by Hezbollah for expressing their opinions. Works have been censored and people have been murdered in broad daylight with no one held accountable — all because freedom of speech is dangerous for the Party of God.
Hezbollah is the authority
Hezbollah is an armed militia that controls Lebanon and its state institutions.Any change that does not go through it will not be tolerated. The corrupt establishment is a perfect hideout, where it can blame others for the country’s ailments while its killing machine rampages in Syria. That’s why Hezbollah has started to condemn the movement and why it will eventually try to stop it altogether. It started with a scuffle in Martyrs’ Square last week, when a group of Hezbollah members attacked — on air — a talk show on which Hassan Nasrallah’s photo was included within a collection of pictures of politicians meant to be held accountable. They forced the host to take down the photo and threatened the TV channel and the movement. The next day they unleashed their ally Michel Aoun against the movement, while their media attacked the organizers of the movement personally in an attempt to undermine their credibility. Of course, none of this actually worked and it kind of backlashed. Many of the party’s supporters joined the protests after that simply because they’re fed up with the garbage, electricity cuts, water shortages and the lack of other basic services.
The Sayyed is not going to provide all this.But Hezbollah did not start the campaign against the movement because of a photo. The problem is beyond the protest — it’s about disrupting the status quo and challenging authority. They would have us remain fearful of everyone: Israel, the takfiris, the Sunnis, the world, and forget about our daily lives and standards of living.That’s how Hezbollah wants us to live. The party wants us to put our citizenship permanently on hold — it’s never the right time for them. When we start acting like citizens, we become a challenge to Hezbollah, which is the decisive authority in Lebanon. Challenging Lebanese authority is — ultimately — challenging Hezbollah.
**Hanin Ghaddar is the managing editor of NOW and a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council. She tweets @haningdr.
Save The Lebanese State
Hussain Abdul-Hussain/ 8/09/2015/Now Lebanon
From Iraq and the Arab Spring we have learned that overhauling a state by breaking and replacing it is dangerously destabilizing. Arab states, like Lebanon, are outdated and corrupt. Their absence, however, takes away the last shred of order. Change in Arab countries should be incremental rather than abrupt, even if rulers make slow progress look impossible. Rallies for immediate change are appealing. Protesters feel noble when shouting against an unfair system run by immoral leaders. Adrenalin from rallies makes activists push hard for change, but without planning for the day after. Some activists do huddle aside, brainstorm and offer a course of action in anticipation of change. But their solutions are often disconnected from reality.
When Egyptians were writing a constitution, during the short tenure of President Mohamed Morsi, their draft had articles that dealt with everything from style of dress to the number of wives. Egypt’s new founding fathers clearly had no understanding of the philosophy behind the state or its functions. In the interim, as Egyptians struggled to run their state, and the army took the country back to its pre-revolution autocracy.
Egypt’s military solution now appeals to many Lebanese, who started arguing for it, unaware that it was once common currency in Lebanon. In the mid-1980s, then General Fouad Aoun wrote a book, The Army Is the Solution, which was printed and circulated by the Lebanese Army under its commander, Michel Aoun. The book proposed that the army run over the country’s territories, dissolve its militias, collect arms and impose civil order. The army would then takes over the state, dissolve it and rebuild it. Finally, it would hold parliamentary elections and hand the state back to civilians, perhaps with Aoun as elected president.
Michel Aoun was committed to this solution. In 1988, he obstructed elections, forced a presidential vacuum and made retiring President Amine Gemayel appoint him chief of the military cabinet. West Beirut defied Aoun and extended the term of Salim Hoss, who had already been an interim prime minister. Aoun then launched the ‘war of liberation,’ which started and ended in a stalemate. After two years of populism and with international and regional changes, the US let Syria overrun Aoun and rule all of Lebanon.
Unlike Egypt, where the army is independent and controls the state, the Lebanese Army is a reflection of the country’s divisions and corruption. The army under Aoun could not defeat the oligarchy, and there is no reason to believe it can do so now.
Almost a quarter of a century after Aoun’s failed experiment, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt — the oligarch with the least resources — saw an opportunity to capitalize on the March 14 movement, the goal of which was the empowerment of the state by ending Bashar Assad’s occupation and the disarming of Hezbollah. Jumblatt allied with the resourceful, yet reeling, successors of Rafiq Hariri, and together they rehabilitated the two Christian oligarchs — exiled Michel Aoun and imprisoned Samir Geagea. But Assad and Hezbollah had gotten to Aoun first and played on his eternal presidential ambitions, thus snatching him to their side.
Even with Aoun gone, Jumblatt and March 14 pressed forward. But they lost. The movement could not shed its tribal culture. March 14 Christians tried to undermine Jumblatt’s control of Christian seats in his districts. Hariri’s position remained unpredictable because of his dependence on regional powers. When Jumblatt remained defiant, Hezbollah hit him where it hurt the most by going after his small but compact and mighty Druze community during the May 8 conflict in 2008.
Perhaps fearing an outcome like his father Kamal, who went against the oligarchy and regional politics and was killed for it, Walid Jumblatt gave up his attempt to prop up the Lebanese state, which is always in the interest of smaller groups and individuals. Jumblatt thus went from being a national and inspiring leader in 2005 to a Druze chieftain in 2009.
Today, the You Stink movement has a chance to pick up from where March 14 left off, albeit with less experience and resources.
Going after what has remained of the Lebanese state, the interim cabinet and its weak police force, is the wrong way. If You Stink wants to fight the corrupt ruling establishment, it should empower the state and lend it popular muscle to implement reform. Destroying the state works best for non-state actors such as militias, thugs and sectarian charlatans.
You Stink should also put itself in the shoes of the government: an oligarch shut down the central dump. The government’s choices were either to leave garbage on the streets or collect it and hide it in forests and riverbeds. Instead of pounding the government, You Stink should have rallied to keep the dump open while the state drafted and implemented a plan. You Stink should stop beating up the government and start empowering it and steering it in a way to take on the corrupt oligarchs, whose power bases are mostly outside the state.
Like previous attempts, You Stink will probably hit the oligarchy’s wall and fall apart. But meanwhile, it is good to tell these young people that while they go through their rite of political passage, they should save the Lebanese state because that is the last thing they, or anybody else, want to see gone.
**Hussain Abdul-Hussain is the Washington Bureau Chief of Kuwaiti newspaper Alrai. He tweets @hahussain
