10/4/2014

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES SHOULD OFFER REAL SOLUTIONS TO THE COUNTRY’S ISSUES AT A REAL TABLE OF DIALOGUE

In the recent past, both the local and the international press have contended that the election of a President of the Republic will serve to solve, as if by magic, the problems of Lebanon.

 For my part, I hold an opposite view.  I believe that, comes election time, the President should be gauged, in the first instance, by his ability to offer, to the representatives of the citizens, the right solutions to the country’s problems.

The “strong President” everyone has been clamoring for, whose election has remained at the center of all the discussions during the past thirteen failed attempts, should not to be assessed by the length of his kalachnikov but by his ability to identify the problems facing the Nation, propose the right solutions, and convince the majority of the deputies that his views are the right ones. Therefore, the potential Presidential candidate, if he wishes to be elected, should offer Parliament a credible and effective national policy.  Unfortunately, to this day, none of the prospective candidates has put his finger on the wound and proposed the right remedy to cure it. They all seem to say: “Elect me and I shall solve all your issues”, without explaining how.

I am sure, at this stage, that some readers would be tempted to ask me: “But what issues are you talking about?”

To a knowledgeable outside observer, the answer is evident, though, oddly enough, it is far less so to the Lebanese citizens. The issues that the Nation faces presently, more acutely than ever, are the inability of its leaders to get  us out of the mess, resulting from twenty years of failed governance and the absence of some clear national goals. This has resulted in the following:

1.        A fast growing public debt that we are unable to redeem. The high cost of servicing that debt has kept absorbing vast amounts of the country’s resources, thus preventing the successive governments from effectively attending to the social needs of the population, boosting the country’s economy, and adequately maintaining its infrastructure.

2.       The wide chasm that separates the two main political groups in the country, the 8 and the 14 of March, has prevented all these governments from adopting and implementing any coherent and constructive national policy.

If one wishes to solve these paramount issues the representatives of the two groups mentioned above ought to meet, with each candidate for the Presidency, over a round table, at the earliest possible opportunity, and decide upon the following:

1. Commonly agree to declare a temporary political truce and jointly examine and discuss the candidate’s short and medium term policies related to the social, the economic, the infrastructure, and the fiscal and financial sectors.
2. Agree upon a clear time schedule to implement the above policies.
3. Commonly draw up a credible follow-up system to ensure that the planned measures are strictly adhered to in the future.

I already hear the objections of some readers claiming that such an approach, has already been tried before, without success, through the “National Dialogue Table”.

My answer would be: “No wonder the approach failed, considering that every party to that so-called Dialogue came to the Table solely to discuss some conflicting subjects, totally ignoring the consensual ones.

What good was one expected to derive from discussing the subject of the arms held by Hezbollah when one knew perfectly well, in advance, that it would be fruitless to do so?

Instead, what should have been at the center of the discussions were essential matters of common interest to both parties as well as to all the citizens of Lebanon who are directly concerned by them. I refer to matters of public governance related to the social, economic, infrastructure and fiscal policies that ought to be implemented in our country but fail to do so, because both parties refuse to talk reasonably to each other. Had the discussions turned over these subjects, I am convinced that their outcome would have been different. Instead, the two blocs came to the Table, armed, each with non-negotiable arguments, knowing full well in advance, that the so-called dialogue would turn out to be a failure.

Now, I am sure that some readers may contend that all this is mere wishful thinking, I believe, though, that the goals mentioned above are easily attainable provided the two blocs decide to earnestly work together. One potent argument that is likely to convince both parties would be the necessity to strengthen the country’s unity against the Daesh dangers that loom on the horizon and menace everybody.

 We read in the press, these days, that in the two countries invaded by Daesh, Iraq and Syria, the local policy of the invaders includes enlisting the cooperation of the Sunni population by promising them better living conditions. In the areas that they have conquered so far, we also read that they try to win the population over by providing their families with food and fuel at cut prices.

These facts, if proven true, should convince both the 8^th and the 14^th of March of the necessity to work together to improve Lebanon’s governance system and the living conditions of its citizens to avoid playing Daech’s game for them.