Lebanon stunned by Suleiman's poll choice

Mitchell Prothero, Foreign Correspondent

• Last Updated: February 18. 2009 8:30AM UAE / February 18. 2009 4:30AM GMT

Hizbollah supporters cheer the leader of the Lebanese Shiite Muslim group, Hassan Nasrallah (portrait), during a rally held in Beirut. Ramzi Haidar / AFP

BEIRUT // A series of mass rallies last weekend designed to energise voters on both sides of Lebanon’s sectarian divide revealed a new political reality led by the country’s mostly unaligned president.

Both the pro-western government coalition of Sunni, Christians and Druze – commonly known as “March 14” – and the Hizbollah-led opposition held separate massive demonstrations for their political “martyrs”. The displays of political theatre, however, could not mask the reality: Michel Suleiman’s decision to support a centrist bloc of Christian candidates in the June parliamentary elections has completely changed the electoral calculus in favour of the current ruling majority.

Mr Suleiman’s quiet endorsement of an independent slate of Christian candidates led by the powerful Murr family should effectively siphon off enough support from Hizbollah’s major Christian ally, the former army chief of staff Michel Aoun, to ensure that the ruling majority continues to control parliament after the election, barring some unforeseen event, according to a number of political analysts and politicians.

If events continue to play out in this manner, it would amount to a shocking reversal of fortune for the March 14 movement, which has seen its popularity plummet since its formation in the aftermath of the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former prime minister, in 2005.

Outrage after the killing allowed a pro-western coalition to take power in the 2005 elections as Syrian forces were forced to withdraw from Lebanon after almost 30 years. But infighting between allies and a major political battle with the Hizbollah-led opposition paralysed the country for two years, destroying most of the goodwill fostered during that time, leaving many Lebanese voters cynical about the utility of their own leaders.

On Saturday, the March 14 movement used the fourth anniversary of Hariri’s death to hold a massive rally in the centre of Beirut that was well attended but hardly passionate, while Hizbollah on Monday celebrated the “martyrdom” of various leaders, including a key military commander, Imad Mughniyeh, killed in Damascus last year.

As the parties tried to gin up election support with the faint whiff of death, leaders on both sides seemed more involved in digesting the new calculus established by the Murr-led slate and Mr Suleiman.

“It was shocking for the mood,” said Paul Salem, a political analyst for the Carnegie Middle East Centre in Beirut.

“The balance just shifted into favour for March 14, by default of Aoun’s new weakness, despite their being counted out by virtually everyone. So instead of electioneering, we saw them jockeying over how to form the next government, as they accept how the election results are likely to look.”

The first recognition of the new reality came from the March 14 leader, Saad Hariri, son of the slain former prime minister, who told his supporters he would not accept his coalition as part of a unity government with veto ability if the Hizbollah-led opposition were to win. But Lebanese political analysts immediately saw this in the reverse, that Mr Hariri was informing Hizbollah he would not offer a unity government in the case of a March 14 victory.

The Hizbollah chief, Hassan Nasrallah, responded indirectly on Monday night by saying he would offer such a unity government in the case of a Hizbollah victory, although his party would rule alone if March 14 refused to join. Again, this was seen as a warning to Mr Hariri that he had best offer such an arrangement in the case of a March 14 win.

Mr Hariri and Mr Nasrallah paralysed Lebanon for two years over the make-up of a unity government – which in the Lebanese system means essentially offering veto power on major decisions to the opposition. The dispute was resolved violently last May, when Hizbollah-led gunmen seized much of Beirut and forced the ruling government coalition to accept a political solution that brought a “unity” government into power along with Mr Suleiman, who tends to maintain good relations with both sides of the political divide, even as he greatly expands his political influence at the expense of Mr Aoun.

“Hizbollah doesn’t need a majority per se,” Mr Salem said. “It proved what it needed to last May and has shown it can protect its weapons and role as ‘resistance’. But Aoun is the one hurt here. His increasingly desperate tone, whenever he appears, he acts furious and angry as he loses on two fronts, to his enemies in March 14 and to the president.”

But despite being resuscitated by Mr Suleiman, March 14 remains in a precarious position in public opinion, as many of its supporters find themselves less interested in supporting them than avoiding a Hizbollah-controlled government.

One former supporter even went as far as to say she “just doesn’t feel safe in Lebanon anymore”.

Dania, 24, a mother of two children from Beirut, lives in the primarily Sunni neighbourhood of Tarik Al Jadida district. “In 2005 I was happy to see the Syrians out, and supported March 14 for their ideas. All they promised back in 2005 sounded good and right for us as Lebanese citizens.

“But so far nothing has been done. I don’t support them; I don’t even listen to them anymore. They never achieved anything on the ground, anything that benefited the country, nothing at all since 2005 until now. Honestly, I now prefer the time before 2005. At least there was more stability, and some kind of prosperity, which we lack now. For example, the economy was much better; there was never any street fighting between politicians. Now I only think about how I’m going to ensure a good future for my children and the only way I see is to travel away from this country just for stability, and safety.”

mprothero@thenational.ae