The responsibility of the Christians today

The responsibility of the Christians today

The responsibility of the Christians today in these general elections seems immense. In fact, it seems greater than at any other time since 1943, the year of Lebanon’s independence, if not since 1920, the year the Lebanese entity itself was created.

Were the majority of them to choose Michel Aoun and his Free Patriotic Movement, it would effectively mean that it voted, consciously or unconsciously, for a political model consisting of two components: the first in complete political unison with Syria, pursuing “a unity of courses” and “one people in two states,” and the second seeking ideological inspiration from Khomeini’s Iran.

This would call into question the two dates mentioned above: 1920, when the Christians tied themselves to a progressive idea called “the nation-state” which allowed them to escape Ottoman alignment, and 1943, when they tied themselves to the equally progressive idea of independence in lockstep with the decline of colonialism and colonial mandates.

The very fact that this review comes voluntarily and that it will be left up to the Christians to express their free will at the ballot boxes makes the issue at hand more dangerous. If they vote for Aoun and his movement, it would mean that they, with total consent, have chosen to stop the march toward independence and sever relations with the West and with Arab states all at once.

In such a case, the West, particularly in light of the Obama administration’s aversion to any interference [in the electoral process], would acknowledge the country’s democratic will and respect it, consequently unburdening itself of any responsibility toward Lebanon and toward the bloc within it traditionally described as being pro-West.

As for the Arabs, especially today as the strife with Iran is at its highest level, such a vote would have an effect on the Lebanese economy which, since the 1950s, has only grown by virtue of its relations with Arab economies and their investments.

It might be said that calling for adopting the Saudi model is no less dangerous for Lebanon and its modernity. But who’s calling for a Saudi model in Lebanon? In any case, does the conservative Saudi policy, which routinely avoids regional conflicts, cause the same amount of trouble as Iranian policy, which is embroiling Lebanon in each of its regional conflicts?

It is most likely that, if the Christians were to vote for Aoun and his movement, they would have committed what is nothing short of political suicide and also destroyed the political model they had so long defended.

If Christians are to be excused for that conscious choice, then we might as well excuse others as well, particularly during the time of Syrian control when the Christians were subjected to a period of prolonged marginalization and denied basic solidarity with their fellow citizens. And this brings us back to the long dark days of the Civil War, a period when no one could claim any moral or patriotic benefit. Rather, everyone contributed, unfortunately, to everyone else’s detriment.