It was a very late and weak attempt that was made by the March 14 team to correct the image of its economic and financial management of the government. In this context, the attempt of Minister Jean Ogassapian and Deputy Ghazi Youssef – during the press conference they held yesterday - to place all the accusations made by the opposition against the premiership and the ministries handled by pro-March 14 ministers in the context of political slander, lacks both accuracy and integrity. Unlike what the minister and the deputy said, the financial and economic issues put forward by the ministers of the opposition do not find the required explanations in the legal measures and the technical complications for which the pro-March 8 and 14 ministers seem to be exchanging accusations in regard to the inability of each to grasp them. And unlike what Ogassapian and Youssef said, the truth “is not clear.” It would not be a great revelation to say that the consecutive Lebanese governments – since the end of civil war and until this day – have followed hostile policies or at least ones which completely disregarded the interests of the poorest classes, under the pretext of giving priority to the attraction of capital-holders and investments to the country to contribute to its reconstruction. These policies and what accompanied them in terms of a unilateral vision in regard to developmental issues, led to a grave retreat of social and educational services which are guaranteed to the Lebanese by law. This affected social security, healthcare and free [medical] treatment, not to mention the status of the public education institutions which seem to be under an undeclared war launched by the state. There are two points that should be underscored during the talk about the socioeconomic practices which Lebanon has been witnessing for around twenty years. The first is that excessive borrowing and the adoption of wrong priorities were reflected in the marginalization of production economy in favor of rentier economy. All the forces which constituted a coalition that held the reins of politics and economy during the aforementioned stage and include – in addition to Rafik al-Hariri - a large number of “symbols” in the current opposition, are responsible for this policy along with the regional state that is sponsoring them. Consequently, “Harirism”, which is often talked about nowadays, is a mere vague expression pointing to a wide partnership between Lebanese and Syrian politicians who participated in the management of an economy, the least that could be said about it is that it lacks planning and comprehensive vision. As for the second, it is that the previous method is still being fiercely defended by the March 14 team, despite its bankruptcy and the global financial crisis which left no room for any doubts over the narrow horizon of the choices that were adopted at the beginning of the nineties. But although the time has come for the adoption of policies that are closer to the sensitivities of the Lebanese who are suffering from the deterioration of the services and the unjustified anarchy affecting the prices of the basic products, those responsible for the fiscal and economic policies are still holding on to a method saying “let the markets find their own balance,” i.e. the same method whose sterility has already been confirmed. As for the opposition which only pays attention to the social tragedies during the moments of tension and division - thus escalating its accusations against practices from which some senior oppositionists benefitted – it rendered the livelihood crisis a rag used to cover up political exploitations that are known to all. Therefore, the talk about the labyrinths and hallways through which public funds are passing and the chivalry of the opposition ministers in salvaging national wealth from the fangs of the “Harirism” dragon are not the least bit honest. This also falls in the context of the attempts to shift the truth from its right track and present it in parts and halves to a public that is suffering from a great memory loss, in addition to the difficulty of getting its daily bread.
