������Ƶ

There is a strange situation in Lebanon. For decades, politicians and their staff have been permanently present on the media scene — commenting, contesting, making their clan’s voice heard, and, in short, occupying space. This was true whether in opposition or government. Today, there is a period of quasi-silence. This silence indicates a loss of direction and an inability to read what is coming next regionally.

There is another serious and pressing element that is changing the equation: the erosion of security and the impact of the difficult situation in the Syrian Arab Republic. While the new leadership in Syria faces a lot of challenges and risks, the one that presents the biggest danger for Lebanon is not the military clashes between communities, but the lack of order and security, a threat that can easily spread. Syria’s security forces are unprepared to fight crime due to corruption, fragmented control, and, as stated, much bigger issues than public safety. This situation creates great instability for Lebanon, as organized crime does not stay within borders.

As the new president, Joseph Aoun, came to power, most Lebanese — some politicians included — hoped he would deliver on his promises to restore sovereignty to the country. Many imagined that a negotiated outcome with Hezbollah was possible and that soon Lebanon would be back to its short-lived “Switzerland of the Middle East” model. Close to seven months later, the optimists — not to call them naive — agree with the cynics of the first hour that this is just quixotic.

There was never going to be, and never will be, a negotiated outcome with Hezbollah. We nevertheless need to put things back into perspective. Aoun came to power after Israel defeated Hezbollah using strikes that brought the Iranian proxy to a level of vulnerability never witnessed before. This extreme weakness, and the shell-shocked status of Hezbollah with the change of regime in Syria, made people believe that this was the perfect time.

Is it a lost opportunity, just like what happened in the 2000s, not taking the bold step needed and losing the window to make a real change? No one knows. Perhaps, despite years of US support and financing, the Lebanese armed forces still do not represent the stick that can challenge Hezbollah. Or perhaps the answer is simply closer than people think. There is no doubt that even if negotiated, projecting strength would be a necessity. This does not exist today.

Organized crime does not stay within borders

Khaled Abou Zahr

There is also within Lebanon an echo of what we see in Western capitals. We cannot ignore the protest posters in New York showing an image of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei with a slogan telling people to be on the right side of history. Yet, there are, even in Lebanon, people who are puzzled about what comes next. This is why it is time to leave the decision to the people in Lebanon.

The electoral system for years has been carved out by politicians to accommodate their deals. They have been, in a sense, accomplices of Hezbollah. It is time to ask the people what they want. It is time to put forward two questions to the people of Lebanon. The first is: Do you back the sovereignty of the country? And the second question: Do you prefer a centralized political system or a federation?

There also should be a two-level count — one for the entire nation and one for each community. It is now important to see what each community needs and wants for the future. There is no doubt that, for example, today the Sunni community — to which I belong — expects the change of regime in Syria from a pro-Iran to a Sunni one that is representative of the majority of the Syrian population to work to their advantage in the long term. In my opinion, Lebanon’s specificity will clash with the uniformity of the Syrian model. This was true yesterday and will still be true tomorrow.

The main objective should be to initiate a dialogue

Khaled Abou Zahr

Yet, it is this entrenched thinking that needs to be destroyed. This historical clan setup has partially been responsible for the ills of the country. Whether Hezbollah or the groups before it, it is the same cycle. I would like to see this setup and political system obliterated. I believe that federalism will bring stability to Lebanon. Yet, perhaps I am a tiny minority within the country or my community. This is why reverting to the people is important.

It is also important to have a view of what each community needs and wants. This should be stated by the people and not the clan leaders who have perpetuated the cycles generation after generation. If we believe in the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon, we cannot be influenced by how the geopolitical shifts affect our community in the balance of power. It is contradictory. We need a system that gives each citizen within each community the capacity to lead a stable life.

What would be the outcome of such referendums? How to manage fragmented results where a community or a group of communities vote differently? What happens if people vote against the state? Does this mean that all communities can arm themselves again? What if they vote for sovereignty — who will execute the will of the people? There are many unanswered questions. Yet the main objective should be to initiate a dialogue, or perhaps accept that, for now, Lebanon is still a lost cause. Either way, the people will know. And those who wish to be Don Quixote can still carry on.

• Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of SpaceQuest Ventures, a space-focused investment platform. He is CEO of EurabiaMedia and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.