Will Sulaiman complete his term?
The Lebanese president faces a severe threat from Aoun, who many suspect plans a coup dӎtat.
Former Lebanese foreign minister Fares Boueiz declared last week that he refused to join Michel Aoun”s Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) in contesting the upcoming parliamentary elections because the latter aimed to instigate a coup d”état. What were mere rumours six months ago thus gained some credibility. Under the circumstances, will President Michel Sulaiman finish his six-year term in office, or surrender to a “Third Republic”?
Using colourful language in his indictment (he referred to FPM candidates as chicks whose tongues would be cut), Boueiz accused Aoun of receiving large sums of money to include several candidates on his lists – something the former general denied. What cannot be simply dismissed, however, are Aoun”s known transgressions – especially with respect to the coveted post of president.
In fact, at the height of the 2006-2008 Lebanese crisis, when members of the opposition shut down the heart of the city and froze their participation in the Siniora government, Aoun was engaged in the only campaign that interested him: seeking to manipulate parliamentarians into electing him to the highest office. It may be worth recalling that before the Doha Conference, which finally filled the vacancy created by outgoing president Emile Lahoud, Aoun insisted that the next head of state should only be elected for a two-year term. In the event, that was not to be, and Aoun reluctantly accepted Sulaiman, whom he perceives as less than objective.
Lebanon”s Aoun problem endured during the past year and though Sulaiman restored the country”s credibility by embarking on goodwill missions around the world, his inherent desire for compromise threatened his tenure. Aoun never forgave those who compromised, including Speaker Nabih Berri, who declared that he was "not only committed to the Ta”if Accord 100 per cent, but a million per cent." Aoun, of course, proposed to amend Ta”if after the June 7 elections, which, he is convinced, will result in a landslide victory for his party.
Given historical animosities between Aoun and Berri, few should be surprised that the speaker cannot rely on Aounists to support his re-election to the highest legislative post, allocated to the Shiite community by the National Charter. A hastily arranged meeting between Aoun, Berri and Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah allegedly settled differences, though the politically sophisticated Berri remained cautious. He rejected claims that the opposition called for the division of shares between Shiites, Sunnis and Christians instead of the Ta”if-mandated equality between Christians and Muslims, and condemned all discussions that wished to reduce the president”s term in office.
The Aoun comedy brought to mind the Sulwan al Muta` fi `Udwan al Atba` (Consolation for the Ruler During the Hostility of Subjects), a treatise written by Mohammad Ibn Zafar Al Siqilli in the 12th century. Like Machiavelli”s prince, Ibn Zafar produced an analysis of power and virtue that emphasised justice. He advised the ruler to adopt five philosophical aims: to believe firmly in God and renounce injustice; to be guided by courage to conquer evil; to patiently persevere regardless of costs and consequences; to be content and submit to the will of God against all hardships; and to consider the burden of rule with cheerfulness.
It may be argued that while Aoun does not share these values, Sulaiman practised them, even if the affable president sometimes seems too refined.
For Ibn Zafar, as for most political philosophers, rulers must govern without making fundamental mistakes, and though pitfalls abound, statesmen learn to avoid them. Given the opposition”s plans, what can Sulaiman do to complete his term in office, and govern effectively?
First, he must ensure that he has full knowledge of events, for that is the one ingredient that shapes all of his other decisions.
Second, it would be useful if he perceived facts for what they were, because it appears that the president harbours naive ideas about his opponents. Admittedly, this is an arduous task, necessitating care in managing various opinions, propositions and options – especially in a country like Lebanon, where freedom of speech is practised with gusto.
Third, he had better be prepared for all eventualities, and when he determines that his preparation is complete, he should prepare some more.
Fourth, a leader of his stature – a former commander of the army – must quickly correct mistakes and learn not to repeat them (this is where his strong and loyal advisors can play important roles, even if he may not always wish to listen to their advice).
Fifth, Sulaiman must be careful not to commit the mistake of certainty (in believing that the current majority will win the election), because the consequences of a victory by the opposition will dramatically change Lebanon.
Sixth, he ought to watch out for false wisdom emanating from world capitals, and only be guided by genuine patriotic objectives.
Finally, Sulaiman should not make the mistake of believing that his ability to compromise will allow him to retain power – he should prepare for the worst.
If Sulaiman adopts Ibn Zafar”s admonitions, he might well circumvent the reported constitutional coup d”état that Aoun and his acolytes are preparing. Otherwise, Aoun”s “Third Republic” will become a reality, and Lebanon as we know it will come to an end.