Unity of Free Patriotic Movement at stake
Myra Abdallah/Now Lebanon/ Published: 22/08/2015
Will Alain Aoun’s dropping out of the FPM leadership candidacy create a schism in the party? “Dear leader, dear General, you who have taught me the love of my country […], this decision will cause the disunity of the [Free Patriotic] Movement. How can we demand that the [Lebanese] people elect a president while we are unable to elect our own president? Gebran [Bassil] does not represent me nor does he represent the majority of the Aounist striver crowd,” tweeted Michel Abi Khalil, a now-former memeber of the Free Patriotic Movement, along with a picture of his FPM membership card cut in half.
Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) members had put high hopes on the internal election of a new head of their party — meant to be an example of democratic behavior for all other Lebanese parties — so they were surprised on Thursday when MP Alain Aoun – Michel Aoun’s son-in-law – dropped out of the race, leaving Gebran Bassil — also Michel Aoun’s son-in-law — the lone candidate for the leadership of the party. The head of the party was supposed to have been elected, with two vice presidents nominated by Michel Aoun, and Alain Aoun’s abdication is seen by many as a result of Michel Aoun’s influence and favoritism.
“Alain Aoun certainly did not retreat out of personal initiative,” said Abi Khalil. “Michel Aoun was putting a lot of pressure inside the party in order to reach this agreement.” Aoun has pushed Bassil forward for official positions against consensus before. In 2009, when Bassil was striving to be part of Saad Hariri’s cabinet, Michel Aoun went as far as paralyzing the formation of the cabinet if Bassil was not a minister in it, despite the March 14 coalition’s rejection of him. One of Aoun’s most famous statements came from this debacle: “For the eyes of the general’s son-in-law, let there be no cabinet.”
Joseph Fahed – the FPM’s electoral campaign coordinator in Keserwan – says the elections are a means, not an end. “The elections are a chance for a person to express his expectations. These expectations can be reached either through direct elections or through a certain agreement,” he said. “It does not matter if we could achieve a goal with a minimum effort — the important thing is the fact that the goal is achieved, especially that the agreement happened inside the same environment and the same house. Democracy is not about winning but about reaching a certain goal and finding a common ground regardless of the way it happens.”
Alain Aoun dropped out of the race on the first day of the candidature period opening. “If the plan was to restrain other members from running, Alain Aoun’s retreat would have happened on 27 August, not yesterday,” Fahed told NOW. “Later on, when the National Council is formed, it will have the chance to organize new elections if it finds that Bassil is not qualified to be head of the party.”
While other members still have time to announce their candidacy before 27 August, Bassil becoming the lone candidate has angered many FPM members who believe democracy should be applied inside the party in the first place. This had encouraged Fares Louis, for one — an FPM member and one of the party’s founders — to run against Bassil. Repeated calls NOW made to several other FPM members and MPs who are allegedly planning to become candidates had not been returned at the time of this writing.
Alain Aoun expressed concern in a statement that his retreat might put the unity of the FPM at risk. “Being aware of the danger that the fallout of the elections might threaten the unity of the Movement, especially in this period when [the party] is facing a big political attack, I call on you to surpass this and keep working together,” he said. But many FPM members NOW spoke to are indeed afraid that Bassil’s de facto nomination might cause a certain rupture in the party. “FPM officials considered that by putting aside the internal elections, they could avoid an internal rupture,” said Yvonne Souaiby, Al-Akhbar journalist and FPM member. “Currently, the situation is worse. If the elections took place, members would accept the results no matter who was elected. We would wait for the next elections and prepare ourselves and our candidate to win the next elections. The elections were our last hope, and now it is broken.”
Several FPM members told NOW that the controversy around this issue is not about whether Gibran Bassil is competent for the position, but is rather a question of his popularity within the party itself and in the broader Lebanese public. Bassil has lost parliamentary elections twice — once in 2005 and again in 2009 — and many consider him to have been imposed on the party and the state. Fahed says that “Gebran Bassil has the greatest experience compared to other members. He has also proved successful in many ministries [that politicians] used to avoid taking charge of. We should invest this success inside the FPM.”
But not all FPM members agree with Fahed. Abi Khalil says there are two approaches within the party — Bassil’s and his camp, and Alain and Naim Aoun’s (Michel’s nephew). “In my opinion, the second approach is the one that represents the cause of the FPM combatants in Lebanon,” he told NOW. “Gebran Bassil does not represent me. The idea that the head of the FPM is nominated and not elected does not represent me. General Aoun taught us how to be democratic and this is what used to discern the FPM from other political parties.”
Souaiby says that an FPM rupture can’t be confirmed as yet. “We need to wait a couple of weeks to know what the outcome of this campaign will be,” she told NOW. “All the members who objected to the fact that Alain Aoun retreated — even those who were going to vote to Gebran Bassil anyway, but are refusing the fact that he gets nominated — might decide to vote for Fares Louis. Fares Louis, even though not very popular, could win just like Camille Khoury won against Amin Gemayel in the Metn elections, though he was unknown to the public.”“I am definitely not a member at the FPM anymore,” Abi Khalil reiterated to NOW. “Even if the elections happened and a member other than Gebran Bassil became head of the FPM, I will not join again. The party lost its credibility for me.”
Myra Abdallah tweets @myraabdallah
Lebanon’s Michel Aoun: a legacy of change, a failure of reform August 23rd, 2015/Daily Star
Love him or loathe him, retired Gen. Michel Aoun has been an integral part of the political scene for more than a quarter of a century. At various stages of his political career, first as interim premier, then exiled opposition leader and finally an integral part of the ruling class, he has enjoyed popular support in Lebanon, mainly among Christians.
From the early days, the general hit a cord among many when he stood up first to the Syrian military presence and then to the dominant militia in the Christian areas during the Civil War. From his exile he later worked actively to garner international pressure to get Syrian forces out of the country.
Despite little success, and at times catastrophic results, many supporters stood with Aoun, seeing him as a force of change in the political class and a serious alternative to warlords-turned-politicians.
When he returned to Lebanon his supporters rejoiced and his rivals fretted – both assuming he would seek change. Forming a large parliamentary bloc, he called it Change and Reform. Friends and foes braced for the onslaught. Then, not much changed.
Aoun can point to many factors that didn’t facilitate a reform agenda. He can blame adversaries for his long trail of disappointments, from the presidency to the government and Army command. But what happened Tuesday can’t be defended by the most dedicated of followers.
Imposing his son-in-law as leader of his party, without even the façade of an election or a vote despite widespread internal opposition, epitomized Aoun’s turbulent career: A lot of rosy promises, but little change. In the end he became a typical member of Lebanon’s political elite, the elite he spent his long career claiming he wants to reform.
