Tarek Heggy

       I learned of Hariri’s assassination minutes after it happened from the BBC website that is kept open at my office all day. The news did not come as a surprise. I had been expecting Hariri to meet a violent end for some time, not in retribution for past stands, such as his strong opposition to the extension of the president’s term, but to abort a future scenario that would have been intolerable for the ruling regime and its supporters, namely, the upcoming parliamentary elections in which Hariri was expected to emerge the big winner. This would have inevitably placed Syria and the Lebanese president, on one side, on a collision course with the prime minister and a parliamentary and popular majority on the other, an untenable situation that could not be allowed to arise. And so his murderers decided to preempt such a scenario by removing Hariri from the scene in a manner that has become all too familiar in Lebanon’s recent history, where killing off political opponents is the preferred method of dealing with challenges.

       What did come as a big surprise was the moving spectacle of his funeral and the way the millions of mourners who took to the streets put on an impressive display of discipline, dignity and respect. I was surprised at the strong support expressed by the vast majority of the Lebanese people for Hariri and the opposition of which he was the leading figure. It was amazing to see how, even in death, he was able to rally hundreds of thousands of Lebanese from all religious affiliations to the cause of the opposition, which is demanding an end to any foreign military, political and intelligence presence in Lebanon and condemning as illegitimate the renewal of President Emil Lahoud’s tenure.

       But although the grief at Hariri’s passing was overwhelming it was not unanimous. There are some people in Lebanon, and they are certainly in the minority, who are closer in mind and spirit to Tehran, Damascus or Palestine than they are to their own country. This aberration is the result of what I consider to be a pernicious canker eating away at the very foundations of Arab societies, namely, the brainwashing that makes the members of a society more concerned with the affairs of other societies than with their own.

       I believe Hariri’s assassination has opened what will turn out to be the final chapter in Lebanon’s long agony. It is inconceivable that this proud country, which was, and continues to be, the most advanced and civilized in the region, superior in all respects to its neighbours, should be under foreign occupation. It is inconceivable that pictures of foreign leaders should be plastered in its public squares as though they were the masters of Lebanon. It is inconceivable that a great nation which prizes freedom and which produced paragons of liberal and progressive thought is now forced to gaze upon huge posters of theocratic rulers whose ideas belong to the Dark Ages. To see Khomeini’s picture raised in the country of Fairouz is a grotesque anomaly that defies all logic.

       There is absolutely no doubt that the foreign presence in Beirut will come to an end in the near future. We are also certain to see the decommissioning of Lebanon’s militias soon and the right to bear arms vested exclusively in the legitimate authority. Another certainty is that Lebanon’s ailing democracy, which suffered many setbacks in the aftermath of the civil war, will regain its vigour before too long. The question is, however, whether all these developments will come about in a climate of social peace or whether the engine of inexorable change will inevitably be fueled with Syrian and Lebanese blood. The Lebanese opposition, which cuts across sectarian lines to include Muslims, Christians and Druze speaking with one voice, has acted with a restraint that is rare in our part of the world. While not mincing its words in demanding the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops and intelligence apparatus, it has shunned posturing and fiery words in favour of moderation and a civilized mode of discourse unlike the language usually used by opposition forces in most countries of the region. This is in stark contract to the warped logic and timeworn language to which Lebanon’s rulers resorted in the wake of the tragedy. They were quick to point the finger of suspicion at America and Israel, on the grounds that the perpetrator is the party with the means to carry out the crime rather than the party that stands to benefit from Hariri’s disappearance. In fact, the likeliest perpetrator is the party that had the most to lose when Hariri won a landslide victory in the upcoming elections, became prime minister with a majority in parliament and demanded the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon.  

The Arabic version of this article was published by the Egyptian political weekly magazine ROSE el YOSSEF on 26th February, 2005.