Despite the gift of patience which he has proved to be endowed with, the new master of the Serail, Saad Hariri, knows that what he has endured during the five month of cabinet-formation that resulted in this miraculous government selection may well be a mere “walk in the park” compared to what awaits him inside the government cabinet, in terms of dealing with an opposition which holds the obstructing one-third and represents the opposite of everything he strives for in politics and economy, as well as at the social level. His late father had a different experience, one which could be considered “easier” if taken in terms of dealing with the issues put forth and with recurrent crises on a daily basis. Rafic Hariri was dealing directly with the leadership of the Syrian tutelage and its security apparatus deployed across Lebanon's territory, which held the final decision on any problem that might occur or be provoked. Thus he would balance what was possible with what was imposed, sometimes using Damascus for leverage against his opponents if they went too far, within the framework of a regional consensus that included everyone and placed them all in the same “basket”. Saad Hariri, on the other hand, has to deal with the “representatives” of Syrian tutelage from among the Lebanese and with their further regional extensions, Syria having left the circle of direct communication, and simply seeking its opinion now requiring regional and international mediators as well as shuttle visits between capitals. How can he then do this when the quarrels of forming the cabinet have tangibly proven that its role remains fundamental in making any formulation or decision? So-called “national unity” governments are usually based on mutual voluntary concessions made between two parties or more, competitors and opposites both in ends and means, because, as they have felt the presence of an imminent external danger threatening the country, the system and all of the political parties, sacrificing principles and conceding gains becomes a duty to save the country. In Lebanon, on the other hand, the threat to stability, the system and its institutions comes from the interior itself, and there are parties who consider that they have the right to impose their opinion on others, neither by the force of conviction and political stances nor through the ballot boxes, but rather by threatening with weapons, obstruction and making use of their foreign relations for leverage, to then demand to be partners in the rule which they threaten. Coalition governments usually mean consensus over a minimal program and an understanding over how to implement it, which is what did not take place during Hariri's negotiations with the opposition, where the give-and-take was based on shares, portfolios and individuals, without reaching up to notions, roles and goals. That is the significance of Patriarch Sfeir's warning of the danger of bringing together the majority and the minority in a single government to the process of making decisions, defining the policies of the state and managing its affairs. This is also what Hariri meant during his cabinet's first meeting when he considered that it was “exceptional” in its structure but that it did “not set the foundations for a constitutional rule or norm”, expressing his hope that he would one day stand in the ranks of the opposition within the framework of a democratic system, not imposing his views on the other side by force or under the pretext of “not abiding by the National Pact”. Indeed, the deep-seated disagreements between the ruling majority and the opposition, starting from appointing any public servant, through defining foreign policy, reaching up to reviving the role of constitutional institutions, will always reflect a test of strength between the two and an arm-wrestle that does not facilitate the task of any government. It is true that all “revolutions”, including the “Cedar Revolution”, must one day come to an end, so that the process of internal rebuilding can begin with the broadest participation possible of different political and social forces. Yet this presumes that these forces agree on considering themselves, in words and in practice, part of this entity they seek to establish, not on them demanding to participate in shaping it while continuing to reside outside of it. As for what has taken place in Lebanon, it fails to convince anyone.
