Sleiman has introduced a new culture to Lebanon’s political process
Michel Sleiman’s speech during Saturday’s National Army Day celebrations once again demonstrated that the president is intent on keeping the promises he made during his inauguration address last year. Among the top priorities that Sleiman set for the nation in his historic first address as president were the need to activate the economy, enhance the independence of the judiciary and initiate a process of broad-reaching political reforms. Sleiman’s consistency in pursuing these objectives since then shows that he is responsive to the demands of the Lebanese people.
That is more than can be said of the vast majority of this country’s politicians. Far from being attentive to the citizenry, most of Lebanon’s political leaders seem to think that holding public office is the modern-day equivalent of being a feudal overlord. Their time in office is rarely used for the benefit of the public, but is rather largely spent jostling with rival leaders in order to better position themselves to maintain their hold on power.
It was perhaps this prevailing attitude among the political elite that prompted Sleiman to issue a challenge to his fellow politicians during his Army Day address on Saturday. He urged them to engage in a moment of self reflection and ask themselves what they have managed to achieve thus far for the sake of the Lebanese people.
He also called on the next government to work toward implementing a wide range of reforms, saying: “If the problem lies with us, the politicians, then we should leave. If it lies with the Constitution, then we should amend it. If it lies in political sectarianism, then we should end it.”
Such a straightforward, honest approach is rare in Lebanese politics, but what is even more uncommon is that Sleiman was championing the causes of ordinary citizens. Ordinary people have paid the heaviest price for Lebanon’s dysfunctional political process, whether in terms of state funds plundered, lives lost, property damaged or businesses strangled during repeated bouts of internal conflict. Yet the sectarian system further entrenches a political elite with deeply vested interests in a status quo that punishes the majority of Lebanese.
By taking on matters such as constitutional reform, Sleiman has proven himself to be a new breed of politician. He is introducing a different culture into the political process – one of public service – and this is a welcome change.
Saad Hariri, a relative newcomer to the game of Lebanese politics, can find in Sleiman a good ally if the premier-designate’s goal is to represent the people who delivered him a surprisingly resounding victory in the parliamentary elections. If Hariri pursues the national objectives Sleiman has identified, the people will thank him.