Debates between Speaker Nabih Berri and former PM Saad Hariri only stir boredom. The two men are trying to extract water from an arid well, or from ideas and images belonging to bygone times and eras. Meanwhile, they imagine that they are doing political work. Hariri declares that his team will not elect Berri as speaker in case the March 14 forces win the upcoming elections. Berri then responds sarcastically to the former prime minister and to his hobbies. The former believes that he is directing a threat and a blow at Berri who owes his persistence in his post as speaker since the 2005 elections to Hariri and his allies. The latter is unequivocally aware that his becoming speaker nineteen years ago was due to a bunch of regional and international factors. In addition, Syria – of which he is the most prominent ally – was placed in charge of running the Lebanese affairs by the Arabs and the world, following the civil war. He also knows that only a change in said balances will cause him to lose his post. This is the reason why he is being sarcastic vis-à-vis Hariri. Thus, he is minimizing the importance of Hariri, his movement and everyone affiliated to him in case there is an “international and regional will” to extend Berri's term. In light of the above, one can understand Berri's previous call for a Saudi-Syrian agreement and his current intense support of the Syrian regime, which constitutes the last pole upon which are based his roles in the Lebanese political life. In fact, Berri and Hariri are only re-emphasizing what is already known. The multiplicity of sectarian, social, and external groups that the two men represent and stand for, is allowing them to give dimensions to their messages that the Lebanese people are capable of understanding more than anyone else. When Hariri attacked Berri in the same statement where he tackled the near fall of the Syrian regime, he wanted to imply that the speaker and his movement, Amal, and the political alliance that he belongs to, will fall along with the fall of Bashar al-Assad in Damascus; and that he, Hariri, will come back from his long trip safe and victorious in order to lead a country that has finally freed itself from the illegal weapons and that, with the support of the international community and the Arab Spring forces, is heading in the direction of modernity and prosperity. This is what Hariri thinks, and these are not such deep notions anyway. As for Berri, he is betting that Al-Assad will succeed in remaining in power even if this means that Syria and Lebanon will be drowned in blood similarly to his father's deeds three decades ago. Thus, there is no need to worry about the future outside Lebanon. As for the internal Lebanese scene, the shrinking of Berri's authority in favor of the other “ally,” Hezbollah, is amendable through the eternal extension of Berri's term as speaker. As Hariri imagines that he is addressing the masses of the Arab revolutions, Berri believes that he is the spokesperson for the ever victorious defiance and resistance supporters. Speaker Nabih Berri and former PM Saad Hariri seem to be the prisoners of a Lebanese speech rich with word play and signs and meanings that are too heavy for their statements. The predictions of the two men in regard to their respective adversaries might come true. However, this does not negate the fact that this kind of behavior is not very different from what the Lebanese people had seen during the days of the feudal Al-Khazen family and the Shahabi princes during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Time is said to follow a loop-like route in the minds of the Lebanese leaders. It has no beginning and no end. There are no revolutions, no historic leaps, and no changes. But those who live in a loop-like era can produce nothing but disintegration and boredom.
