24 June 2008

BEIRUT: Just after spending six months without a president, Lebanon looks to be facing another prolonged political void, as feuding political camps remain far from agreeing on a unity cabinet, a number of analysts told The Daily Star on Monday. "This is going to go on for quite a while," said Timur Goksel, former senior adviser to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. "It might last till the end of the year."

The March 14 and March 8 coalitions are still polarized, despite the May 21 Doha accord that at least formally ended their 18-month stand-off and led to the election of President Michel Sleiman, analysts said. Since late last November Lebanon had stumbled along without a head of state, despite 19 failed attempts to convene an electoral session in Parliament.

After those foibles and the unstinting political bickering, the question arises whether the nation could be in for another six months without a unity government. "Why not? You are in Lebanon," said retired General Elias Hanna, who teaches political science at Notre Dame University.

The agreement on a president in Doha emerged after sweeping violence last month killed at least 65 people, and that episode did alter the political landscape, Hanna added. The Hizbullah-led March 8 opposition proved its military might, briefly seizing control of much of western Beirut.

"To elect a president, there was a major turning point," he said. "What happened in Beirut shook the whole system."

"Some gained something, some lost something else. March 14 has lost something, and you have a different Beirut. Beirut is in a chaotic situation. It is not [parliamentary majority leader MP Saad] Hariri's fief, as it used to be."

However, even though the events of May brought about an end to one executive vacuum, they did not change the fundamental polarization between the political factions, leaving the inability to form a cabinet or stamp out the violent repercussions of May's civil strife, the analysts said.

"There is no agreement," Hanna said. "What is shocking is how they can accept this deterioration of the security situation and not to do anything to solve the problem," he added, referring to the past two days of widespread violence in Tripoli that has killed at least eight. "This tells you there is a major rift between March 8 and March 14."

On paper, doling out 30 cabinet posts - when the Doha accord mandates 16 seats for March 14, 11 seats for March 8 and three for Sleiman - should present a simpler equation to resolve than the single post of the presidency, which makes the prolonged wrangling a clear sign that the two camps have settled, said analyst Simon Haddad.

"The security situation has changed, but we still have the same [political] cleavage," he said, adding that the negotiations over cabinet posts revolve around only a handful of choice seats. "It is only the distribution of four or five ministries. They have already agreed on the quotas. It is easier than a vacuum in the presidency."

The March 14 coalition had nominated Sleiman before the presidency became vacant, so now the Western- and Saudi-backed alliance may be trying to string the Iranian- and Syrian-backed March 8 group along on the cabinet's formation partly to take revenge for the perceived obstruction of Sleiman's election, Haddad added.

"The opposition was against the election of Sleiman until new developments occurred," Haddad said. Now, on the contrary, "it's the majority who are taking their time. It's a reply to what the opposition has done in Beirut. It prevents the new electoral law from being implemented."

With the tit-for-tat political gamesmanship, the creation of the government does not appear close, he added.

"It could last weeks or months, or maybe a sudden event could break the deadlock," Haddad said.

The cabinet saga also reveals that the underlying causes of the protracted March 14-March 8 face-off lie deeper than momentary political partnerships; the various clans comprising the two sides are merely out to get their shares of the country's political spoils, a struggle that will not end with the unsure formation of the unity cabinet, Goksel said.

Whenever a government arises, the various groups will simply commence new skirmishes over alluring posts in political and security machinery, he added. "It's very sad, but it's not over yet," he said. "This is nothing yet."

"Then it's going to start the next round. They haven't started about who's going to be the next army commander [or] the next head of the Internal Security [Forces]."

"This is horse trading," Goksel said. "This is what happens when we have a tribal set-up in the country. The root problem is ... the nature of the country's political make-up. It's not a sectarian thing - it's tribal.

"This is tribalism at its best."

Against this backdrop of unending tribal clashes, the cabinet squabble also represents one of the earliest stages in the campaign for next year's parliamentary elections, Goksel added. For example, efforts in the cabinet negotiations to claim a post atop one of the ministries that provide direct services to the people is little more than a naked grab for future votes, he said.

"Nobody is worried about providing any services for the country," Goksel said. "It's not about the state. It's all about the interest of the tribe."

With the political bosses' attention focused on gains for their faction, it might require another worsening of the security situation to force the camps to agree on a government - if the latest spasms in the streets of Tripoli are not merely another means of negotiating over cabinet posts, Hanna said.

"Maybe there is some pressure through the streets to accelerate the formation of the government," he said.

In the end, large-scale civil violence might remain the only sure way of pushing the antagonists to make a deal, Goksel said. "At that point, they all decide it is time to do something.  Sadly, that is the reality."

Copyright The Daily Star 2008.