The Cultural Illness

The disease afflicting the country is not solely the Hezbollah militia, although it constitutes the most significant challenge, nor is it other militias, armed groups in the Palestinian camps, the absence of sovereignty, or the perpetual corruption dating back to the Mutasarrifate (1862-1915).

This disease, which is the erosion of the culture of the state and of the sovereign state, has infected and proliferated mentalities since the Syrian Ba'athist occupation.

It was exacerbated later and became cancerous under Hezbollah's hegemony.

For 21 years, Hezbollah, at every level of its hierarchy and wherever it is present within institutions, has relentlessly worked to shape mentalities and render them subservient, using these institutions as a socio-political and security shield for its own benefit. The state and its institutions are thus disfigured, and any official who does not adopt the rhetoric of "resistance" is labeled a traitor and a Zionist agent. Likewise, friendly countries where hundreds of thousands of Lebanese, naturalized or not, reside must be labeled enemies, and their representatives avoided or boycotted under threat of accusations of collusion with imperialism. According to this widespread culture, Lebanon should isolate itself from the Arab and Western worlds.

For those who do not admire Hezbollah, Stockholm Syndrome takes hold and becomes commonplace. Faced with this, the champions of fait accompli can find nothing better to do than play the insipid game of "pragmatism."

Conversely, the wave of drastic opposition to the armed group blames the "deep state" for our situation. This is by definition classically business-oriented, whereas in reality what we are suffering from is the "shell state," or the "Hezbollah mask state." Therefore, blaming what is happening on the "deep state" is simplistic. Furthermore, absolving the highest levels of the state hierarchy, and those in the intermediate positions between this hierarchy and the deep abysses, of responsibility is wrong.

The culture of the state, envisioned by the founding fathers of modern Lebanon a century ago, was gradually established by an elitist class, first under the French Mandate, then under successive presidents and governments until 1975. This can indeed be seen by rereading the newspapers of the time and recalling what daily life was like before the war. Certainly, in those periods, there was a state and institutions that functioned despite their shortcomings, weaknesses, and flaws. These issues took on their true dimensions during the first four presidential terms after independence, but this period was insufficient to achieve the necessary socio-political maturity among all citizens, especially after four centuries of sectarian culture under the Ottoman Empire's "millet" regime.

Since 1975, the Lebanese have yearned for a sovereign state governed by the rule of law, and they continue to seek it, but a large majority no longer understand what it is.

State institutions, instead of serving the citizens, have become instruments of power, hegemony, and enrichment.

Many find this routine and live "normally" with it. Moreover, the state's collusion with the pro-Iranian militia has become an obligation in the eyes of Hezbollah supporters, and commonplace for everyone else.

To turn the tide and set things right, what is needed are true statesmen, not just representatives of religious groups, who often come from populist circles.

Religious diversity is a reality, but its management cannot be left to mediocrities. Elites within each religious group or party are essential in these circumstances.

The Speaker of our parliament is not a true leader in the classical sense. He wields veto power over the executive branch and hegemony over the administration of the state to facilitate the affairs of his cronies and supporters. He manages parliament much more like a "Loya Jirga," or tribal council, and much less like a team that legislates and discusses visions and action plans in the face of strategic challenges. The proof lies in the parliament's resounding absence regarding the Hezbollah-Israel war since 2023.

The Prime Minister, for his part, is almost entirely detached from security and military decisions. Our government, despite its qualified ministers, hardly resembles a working team that collectively identifies problems and develops solutions. A clear foreign policy is nowhere to be seen, nor is a strategy for negotiations with Israel, which are rejected by a segment of the executive and legislative branches.

The president of the republic makes numerous pronouncements but fails to play the role of constitutional conductor.

The attacks and defamation he endures are not countered by institutional measures.

Furthermore, politicians, clan and militia leaders, and media outlets vie for airtime and column space to declare their support for or opposition to negotiations with Israel, but this remains merely a matter of taking positions.

Complaints against the "shell state" are justified but insufficient. What is lacking is action from statesmen.

The countries of the region, whether friends, enemies, or adversaries, are working tirelessly to safeguard the interests of their people and emerge from the regional crisis with minimal damage. If things continue to be managed in this way, solutions will be imposed from the outside; otherwise, we will be condemned to simply manage day-to-day affairs. Finally, what has been said about the rule of law and the sovereign state may be utopian, but if we do not aim very high, we risk not only going nowhere, but sliding very low.