What protesters are demanding in the squares of freedom and change today existed in the Arab world within a state known as Lebanon. Protesters and demonstrators demand freedom; the peaceful transfer of power; transparency; an independent judiciary. Lebanon used to have many of these features. The President of the Republic used to win with a difference of one vote. Parliamentary majorities used to change. There was freedom of the press. The President used to gather his papers as soon as his mandate ended. General Fouad Chebab was embarrassed to say that he did not mind extending his mandate and went home. The time of impertinence came later. Lebanon used to vote, write, and publish. It welcomed those escaping suffering or tyranny. Beirut was a cauldron of questions about the future, which were prohibited in most of the region's capitals. The Lebanese spring was early and provocative, with radiations that worried many people. Thus, there were wishes to silence it, ruin it, or distract it with blood. Lebanon fell due to the encounter of its citizens' suicide attraction with the burden of the decision to commit suicide. Lebanon seems to be such a failure today, when faced with the Arab revolutions and the dreams of change. Others move toward the future or search for it, while Lebanon busies itself with digging up tombs and persisting to sail toward the past. The country that used to be a pioneer is evaporating. The Estonian tourists entered the Lebanese territory and evaporated suddenly. This evaporation phenomenon is terrifying. Democracy is evaporating, and with it the remnants of the State's foundations and properties. The role of the President of the Republic is evaporating, along with the Prime Minister's prerogatives, the security institutions status, and what remains of the judiciary. What has also evaporated is the language of discourse among communities. TV stations are full of accusations and threats. The Parliament is on an endless vacation, and the formation of the government is faced with voracious appetites in dividing the remains of a state that is devoid of sovereignty and bankrupt. Lebanon seems to be such a failure these days. It is volunteering for roles in which it has no interest, or that exceed its abilities. It has no interest in being an incubator for promoting democracy, or an open laboratory for opposition. Its interest is to be a normal state and refrain from importing or exporting fire; to restore its state and its institutions and the living formula among its citizens; to provide its citizens with bread, job opportunities, and decent living. Humbleness is a must. The regional conflicts are larger than Lebanon. Its fragility does not allow for the discourse of exclusion, inculpation, or the cutting of the few remaining veins. It is necessary to go back to the the middle of the road discourse. Any victory outside it remains temporary or threatened. There must be some Lebanese selfishness to rearrange the domestic scene. Dancing on the high voltage lines in the region constitutes a dangerous hazard. The meeting of the Maronite leaders yesterday grabbed my attention. They have a long history of wagering on the discourse of daggers and moving them inside wounds. Perhaps they discovered that the long season of exchanging stabs has increased their weakness on the stranded Lebanese ship. It left them and their country covered with blood. Perhaps they discovered they have no interest in wars that are greater than them, and in standing on high voltage lines. The best they can offer their supporters is to send the daggers to retirement, then use what remains of their sect's influence to prevent further sliding towards a Sunni-Shiite confrontation in Lebanon. The four leaders can use their positions in the two large camps in Lebanon to stop the sliding of the camps towards the abyss of street confrontations. If their intentions are candid, they can contribute in distributing guarantees and bandages, and promoting the option of returning to a state. It is their chance to play the role of the rescuer in a country heading for a severe crisis of its constituents. The proposed spiritual summit can also represent an opportunity to remind that Lebanon is constantly facing an unambiguous choice: dialogue or suicide, and that it is the fate of the Lebanese to dialogue and coexist, and to derive lessons from the season of daggers between sects and regions. In the past years, the season of daggers was flourishing and is still open. The assassinations had the effect of daggers, and so did the transformations and the accusations. The war against the international tribunal and the war against weapons also had the effect of daggers. The daggers got tired, but the Lebanese did not tire from moving the daggers. The region is boiling. Who knows, perhaps the “Lebanese arena” will be chosen to be the location for compensation, settling accounts, or exporting crises. The Lebanese have no choice but to meet halfway under the umbrella of the State. There is no choice other than heading toward the post-daggers times.
