Arriving at the home of General Michel Aoun in Rabiy, we were struck by the serene atmosphere of most of the region in comparison with the general's house, which was a hive of intense activities. After an exile of 15 years, the former prime minister has regained a prominent part on the Lebanese political scene, from which he was never entirely absent during his exile. His determination and will to achieve his objectives have not changed, and his aspirations for the nation are strengthened by each rising sum. In the following interview, given by him to the publications of Dar Alf Leila wa Leila -- Al-Hawadeth, Al-Bayrak, La Revue du Liban and Monday Morning -- General Aoun spoke with fervor about the imperatives of the moment: an equitable election law, combating corruption, wide-scale political reform, the need to place the country on a secular basis... He told us he "had never lost hope" and, in exile, he would always tell his visitors to do their utmost to regain Lebanon's freedom. He indicated that legal proceedings being brought against him were "the last thing" on his mind. The conversation was conducted in the presence of generals Issam Abou-Jamra and Edgar Maalouf, forme comrades-in-arms of the general. The statement issued by the Maronite bishops has led to numerous local and American reactions. How would you assess this situation and where do you agree or disagree with their communiqu?
It is possible that there is a difference of form. I have said that the law of 2000 marginalizes the Lebanese citizens in general and brings to power the marginals, instead of the reverse.
The large Christian opposition to the 2000 electoral law in the beginning made the Christians have these feelings in the absence of any other opposition.
In fact, this electoral law marginalizes all the Lebanese sects. Do you feel that the electoral "bus" in the South or Akkar is representative of all the people in those regions? If this law only marginalized the Christians, I would have said so without any hesitation.
The law of 2000 affects everyone negatively, so the condition of marginalization affects the Lebanese people as a whole. This is why our principal suggestion is the enactment of an election law, which provides for a single electoral district on the basis of two rounds, because it has become essential within the framework of the expansion of the "Ego". This can be called an electoral law based on proportion and majority. The other law that could be adopted is one which covers lists with numerous names. This should be based on proportional representation because it doesn't marginalize any party or group.
What seems strange to me is that all the parties on the Lebanese scene were against the 2000 election law and each party or side presented its proposal for a law to replace it. Now we've woken up to find that the law of 2000 has been "parachuted" on our heads. It was a bad surprise for all the Lebanese and I was personally very upset and I expressed myself clearly. There was a lot of dishonest maneuvering and trickery, as when members of Parliament walked out of the chamber while the session was still going on in order to deprive it of a quorum, so that the election law could not be discussed. There were other maneuvers of the same kind, as when MPs took "vacations".
In the developed world, leaders and politicians cut short their vacations whenever there are any urgent issues that need to be dealt with. I can only call such maneuvers a form of "treason".
The adoption of the law of 2000 means that we already know, before the elections are held, the names not only of the 64 Christian MPs but also the names of 90 MPs of the overall Parliament. These facts make the law of 2000 highly questionable.
What about the points of agreement or disagreement with the Maronite Patriarchate?
The patriarchate may be taking half the stance I have adopted in this regard, because I have pointed out the marginalizaiton of all categories of the Lebanese population, not only the Christians.
What about the US stance?
The Americans need to have a clear explanation of this point of view, because they have been looking at this matter only from the perspective of the patriarchate, which they consider a confessional aspect. If they had heard my statement at Bkerki [headquarters of the patriarch, Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir], they would have understood that this law marginalizes everybody and excludes the whole people, without distinction of any kind, from the game of national representation. It's not only a matter of law, but things have been made worse by the behavior of certain opposition figures who joined the ranks of the opposition only a few months ago and who want today to impose their own conditions and candidates on those who were part of the opposition from the beginning.
Several 'Rustom Ghazals' instead of one
We've accepted their joining the opposition for eight months, but they have pretended to ignore the popularity of the others. They must not present themselves as the founders of the opposition movement.
Unfortunately, where once we had a single [General] Rustom Ghazal [former head of Syrian military intelligence in Lebanon], we now have several. We reject this line of reasoning. We've fought for independence, sovereignty and freedom without subordinating ourselves to anyone in order to be free. We inculcated in our young people an awareness of the need for a mutual exchange of ideas with others of different views, and we struck the word "hegemony" from our dictionary.
Now it seems that after 15 years, the tendency for hegemony seems to have become a natural reaction among the "students" of the Syrian "school" because, while they haven't yet left the school, they are accusing others of being pro-Syrian. We'd like to tell them, "Calm down; today we're all Lebanese and there is no distinction between us, and we're not going to deal with others on the basis of sharing the spoils".
Staying on the alert
In the event that the law of 2000 is maintained, would you boycott the elections? And what did you mean by the call you addressed to the Lebanese people, to remain ready to confront any attempt at marginalization?
Things are very clear and people should remain watchful and stay informed about our statements, which constitute a determined conviction, since it may be that a definitive stand must be taken. People should remain ready throughout the term of the Parliament they elect because there will be a gap between the people and the legislature. This is because, under the terms of the law of 2000, the people will not be effectively represented, and that is why popular legitimacy will express the people's aspirations. We will, as a minority in Parliament, need the support and backing of this popular legitimacy. We don't want bloodshed, nor do we want conflicts or money. We ask the people to stay awake, on the alert, because we're living at a critical time and we don't want impulsive movements since everything that happens will have repercussions on us.
We must not forget that the new Parliament thus elected will lead to the election of a new president, in three years' time or just after the elections, perhaps, and that is why we need to adopt a certain mode of political "management" over the next six years. And if the new Parliament does not enjoy sound representativeness, the whole system will be based on an "irregularity".
A boycott?
What about a possible boycott?
It will be an " la carte menu" in the sense that we will choose the places where we participate and those where we'll boycott.
When the law loses its comprehensive nature, it naturally loses its legitimacy.
If a proposal is made to postpone the elections in order to frame a new law on the basis of the Taef Agreement, would you agree or would you fear the possible risks of doing this?
It is the popular legitimacy that will determine how this turns out, for it will "label" everyone. There's no longer any question of foisting these maneuvers on the Lebanese people. Just and equitable laws need no jurisprudence.
Whoever tells you that the framing of an election law requires deep study is a liar. Many democratic states have fixed and clear electoral systems that can be adopted by us without resorting to lies or maneuvers.
Some people claim that "General Aoun wants to impose his own opinion". That's not true. What we want is only to attain to a degree of development such that there will be mutual respect between voter and candidate. That's why we need to change the political discourse and commitment so that a spirit of responsibility should be promoted among the people in such a way that they can hold their officials and parliamentary representatives to account.
We need to open wide the door of candidacies to make possible the participation in political life of well-informed and educated young people. Without a law requiring officials and MPs to be held to account on their management of public affairs, we won't go anywhere.
Safeguarding the right to diversity
Some say that insisting on reproducing a "confessional regime", would naturally lead to a sharing of power on a demographic basis.
In a multi-confessional and multi-cultural society that doesn't have a secular basis, we need to safeguard the right to diversity and keep an eye on the possibility of federalism.
But if we want to unify the country, we must adopt unified laws and do away with confessional behavior in favor of true citizenship and, from that, to a secular regime. It's a question of choice.
That's why we must adopt a secular culture, and when this idea ripens in the minds of the people, confessionalism will fall of itself. But if the abolition of confessionalism is carried out from the top of the pyramid, so to speak, or if it comes about as the result of a decision by a majority, then confrontation will occur.
Do you still have the same stance regarding Syria?
Syria has withdrawn from Lebanon and I am in favor of establishing excellent relations with it once the problem of the detainees in Syrian prisons is settled.
We must reject any Syrian interference in our internal affairs. If there is no such interference, we can transcend the mentality of accusations of "collaboration" with Syria and get on with the work of bringing all Lebanese together.
Unfortunately, some Lebanese are in conflict with Syria over the matter of extending the presidential term, not of its occupation of Lebanon.
It's shameful to use the blood of the martyred former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, to exploit his martyrdom. Truth remains the sole arbiter.
For an independent judiciary
How would you combat corruption, the corrupters and political "feudalism"?
We'll begin by finding a remedy to corruption, which is denounced both by loyalists and opposition, who both agree on the need to combat it. This means that I respect Lebanese unanimity on the necessity of eradicating this scourge. That is why I will conciliate respect and action, calling for an auditing to make possible the verification of the state's financial accounts. The matter will then be laid before the courts and they will decide. And here I want to speak of an independent judiciary far removed from political interferences. The Lebanese judiciary has judges who are men of probity, and we have a duty to watch over the independence of the judges.
As for the mentality of political "feudalism", it prevails not only among "elders" of political life but even among some MPs elected for the first time. I'm combating a mentality, not individual persons. I have no prejudice against anyone.
Concerning "political money", it comes from external sources and is intended to put pressure in favor of particular groups. But it can now be easily detected given the progress of the banking mechanism. In general, political fortunes usually emanate from political corruption, power and trafficking in power.
MP or president?
If given the choice of being a member of Parliament or being president, which would you choose?
Neither one is an objective for me; it's the program that counts. Every six years we have a president, and every four years a legislature. What matters is reform.
Is it true that you enjoy external support as a candidate for the presidency of the Republic?
This supposition is the fruit of certain fertile imaginations, nothing more or less. It's an accusation that may be used against me. Didn't some people say I would be returning on an American tank? It's a tissue of lies, nothing more.
It's said that you're waiting for other candidates to publish lists of their allies in the elections before you publish your own list. What's your comment?
That's more or less true. I'm waiting to see what others do, following the collapse of the opposition due to the actions of some of its members.
Is it the case that you are stronger abroad than in the homeland?
Were you in Martyrs' Square the day I returned, in the immense crowd in which people of every region and creed in the country were present? That's my answer.
What, today, would prevent a repetition of the events of October 13, 1990?
With the law of 2000, perhaps something of the kind may happen.
Will coordination between the Free Patriotic Current, your own political movement, and Hezballah continue after the elections, and do you intend to propose a common vision with that party in order to deal with the repercussions of UN Security Council Resolution 1559?
I'm open to dialogue with all Lebanese in order to integrate the whole of Lebanese society, bringing the whole people together. We're working in this direction and we'll engage in dialogue with Hezballah, which represents the majority of the Shiite community. We're not plotting against anyone and we want to reach a common vision to settle the question of weapons of "the interior", since any foreign solution could provoke a grave confrontation with the outside.
We Lebanese can resolve our problems among ourselves, but we have to take account of the time factor.
And a meeting between [Hezballah secretary-general] Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah?
This meeting is expected to take place, but I hope to have enough time to visit the southern suburbs.
Some people are afraid for General Aoun, others are afraid of him. What would you say to these two groups?
I am grateful for the affection of those who fear for my life because they love me. What I can't understand is why anyone should be afraid of me! I wish someone could give me a reason for their fear.
What do you promise to those who love you?
I won't promise them any individual services, but I will free them from the need to ask for them, and I will assure all this as I did when I was in office.
I will liberate them, too, from fear, so that they may be free citizens and that they may assume their responsibilities as citizens.
Does doing all this require your presence in the presidential palace?
Never! Just stay beside me and you'll see that I can achieve this without even being a member of Parliament.
Do you intend to visit Dr. Samir Geagea in prison?
Yes, the first chance I get.
© Monday Morning 2005
