Rafic Hariri, 21 Years Later: How Has Lebanon Changed?… and If He Were Still Among Us?

On February 14, 2005, it was not only a man who was assassinated, but an entire balance that shifted. The assassination of Rafic Hariri marked a turning point in Lebanon's modern history: the moment the country moved from direct tutelage to an internal conflict open to all eventualities. Twenty-one years later, the question seems to go beyond mere remembrance: what has changed? Where is Lebanon today? And if Hariri were still among us, how would he have managed this upheaval?

From Earthquake to Division

The assassination pushed hundreds of thousands of people into the streets, Syrian forces withdrew, and a deep division emerged between the March 14 and March 8 camps. But the liberation from tutelage did not lead to stability, but rather a long period of polarization around sovereignty, Hezbollah's weapons, and Lebanon's regional role.

Since then, every internal issue has been linked to external balances, from presidential elections to government formation.

The Economy: From Reconstruction to Collapse

Hariri was the symbol of post-civil war reconstruction: he rebuilt downtown Beirut, reconnected Lebanon to the world, and built his reputation on a market economy and public services. But after his assassination, this same model persisted, deprived of the political safety net he offered. Debt accumulated, reforms were postponed, and the economy remained fragile, relying on rentierism.

With the war in Syria, then the 2019 uprising, the financial system collapsed. The currency plummeted, deposits vanished, and the middle class eroded. Lebanon did not suddenly collapse in 2020; it had been in disarray for years, without a figure capable of imposing an agreement to stem its decline.

Lebanon Facing Regional Transformations

In recent years, the region has undergone radical upheavals: the rise of Iran, the shifting priorities of the Gulf, and Syria's transformation into a battlefield. Lebanon's ties with the axis led by Tehran under Ali Khamenei have strengthened, and its involvement in regional conflicts has increased through Hezbollah.

Meanwhile, Hariri's 'political legacy' has faded, notably with Saad Hariri's withdrawal from the political scene. The national balance has been disrupted, and Lebanon appears less capable of playing a mediating role and more embroiled in others' conflicts.

Justice and Memory

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon was established, and a verdict was rendered condemning one of the accused in absentia. However, the general feeling of injustice persists. Hariri's assassination was not an isolated crime, but rather the beginning of a phase of political violence. Between those who see him as a symbol of hope and openness and those who criticize his economic model, his assassination remains a pivotal moment that cannot be ignored.

If he were still alive today… what would he do?

The question is hypothetical, but it can be interpreted in light of his approach.

On the economic front:

He would have quickly concluded a clear agreement with the International Monetary Fund and undertaken a genuine restructuring of banks and public debt. He would not have been a proponent of managing the crisis through denial, but rather of finding a major compromise: international support in exchange for deep reforms in the electricity sector and governance.

In Arab relations:

He would have worked to reconnect Lebanon with its Gulf partners and the international scene, leveraging any Iranian-Arab rapprochement to ease internal tensions. His strength lay in his network of relationships and his ability to reconcile opposing parties.

On the issue of armaments:

He probably would not have opted for a direct confrontation with Hezbollah, but rather for a progressive dialogue on a defense strategy, while simultaneously strengthening state institutions economically and securely to reduce dependence on foreign arms.

To restore confidence:

He knew that politics needs hope. He could have launched major projects that would have shown the people that the state was not yet dead.

Between the man and the era:

Would he have succeeded? No one can say for sure. The region is far more complex today, and external support is conditioned on rigorous reforms. But he would most likely have tried to impose a major agreement before reaching this profound collapse.

Twenty-one years later, the question remains: was the problem the absence of Rafik Hariri, or the inability of the Lebanese to carry out the state-building project he had undertaken?

Lebanon has changed considerably since 2005: the currency has collapsed, alliances have evolved, and trust in the state has eroded. But the need remains the same: a sovereign and just state, capable of protecting its economy and its citizens.

This anniversary is not just a simple commemoration, it's a test. Hariri's assassination marked a turning point. Saving Lebanon today requires an equally courageous decision.