Following an article I wrote last week on the Lebanese Forces, voicing criticism of their failure to act as if they were the largest Christian bloc in parliament, the party asked for a right of reply. This is a common convention in Lebanon and Diwan was happy to accept. However, rather than publish it as a text, we agreed to do so in the format of an interview with Marc Saad, the Lebanese Forces official responsible for foreign media.
Michael Young: The Lebanese Forces have asked to reply to my recent article arguing that while the party is the largest Christian bloc in parliament, it often fails to act as if this were true. With what do you disagree in that claim?
Marc Saad: We often hear calls for transactional politics, a kind of politics where all the parties in government should share the profits and benefits of their positions. The Lebanese Forces Party has worked tirelessly to reject this approach, and to anchor morality and ethics in our own practice and in the practice of others. There are no politics without values, ethics, and a clear guiding direction. This kind of transactional politics and management is what led our country to its current state of deterioration, depleted banks depositors’ accounts, and destroyed our economy. Therefore, we should not judge the Lebanese Forces Party’s actions based on short-term gains that will only further erode the pillars of our country. Just look at the Hezbollah-Free Patriotic Movement alliance. It earned both parties short-term gains, but it set the country on a path toward its own demise. As the largest bloc in parliament, the Lebanese Forces Party has a responsibility to anchor these values and lead by example. We do not seek gains for ourselves; we want to put our country on the path to salvation.
MY: Samir Geagea has said that engaging in a dialogue with Hezbollah would be a waste of time because it would not lead anywhere. Yet can you avoid a dialogue with what is perhaps the most influential party in Lebanon, particularly after the Kahaleh incident last week, when open channels between all sides are necessary to avoid further tensions?
MS: The Lebanese Forces Party is a strong advocate of dialogue. We believe that dialogue is essential and inevitable for Lebanon to overcome its current crisis. However, dialogue cannot be held with parties that reject its main principles and that refuse to commit to the outcomes of dialogue. Hezbollah is one such party. Rounds of bilateral and multilateral dialogue with Hezbollah have been met with cold indifference. Years of talks have produced no results. The late prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri was a strong believer in dialogue. He met with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in person, but his efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Hariri was assassinated, along with 22 others, in the middle of Beirut.
The Lebanese people and politicians have also welcomed rounds of dialogue with Hezbollah. However, Hezbollah has never committed to any of the provisions agreed. Former prime minister Saad al-Hariri sacrificed the majority he had won in parliament just to invest in a dialogue with Hezbollah. In return, he faced further assassinations, the neutralization of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, months and years of political vacuum, and eventually the suspension of his political career.
The only group to benefit from dialogue with Hezbollah has been the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM). However, the price was high. The FPM handed over control of the state to Hezbollah in exchange for minor gains in governance, offices, and appointments. Instead of becoming a disarmed political actor, as promised by the FPM, Hezbollah has amassed weapons and sponsored corrupt politicians. Hezbollah has tightened its grip on power and control of the state, and it manages the state in a way that serves its own interests, not the interests of the Lebanese people. Hezbollah’s interpretation of dialogue is for the rest of the Lebanese to follow its command and work to ensure its interests, even if those interests conflict with the interests of the Lebanese people. The Lebanese Forces Party has nurtured dialogue with all the groups that share its concerns about the fate and future of Lebanon. However, Hezbollah still considers Lebanon as a platform to pursue its agenda, not as a nation.
MY: There have been ongoing negotiations between the Free Patriotic Movement and Hezbollah over the next president, in which Hezbollah has portrayed the FPM as the most prominent Christian party. Yet the Lebanese Forces won more votes in the 2022 elections, and have the largest Christian bloc. By not engaging with Hezbollah aren’t you allowing the party and the FPM to marginalize and effectively circumvent you and your voters?
MS: Hezbollah is not the arbiter of who represents the Lebanese people. They can freely choose to ally or converge with any political party they want, but they cannot impose on the people who can or cannot be their representatives. The Lebanese people have spoken out and clearly announced their opposition to Hezbollah’s policies and practices. Hezbollah seems unable to accept the results of the 2022 parliamentary elections, in which they lost their majority. Even within their own camp, they have discarded the FPM and pushed for another candidate for president, who is much less popular than FPM leader Gebran Bassil. Hezbollah does not believe in democracy; they believe in the rule of arms.
The Lebanese people did not vote for the Lebanese Forces Party to befriend Hezbollah or compete with the FPM leader for Hezbollah’s trust. The people have entrusted us and the opposition groups to rectify things and adjust politics in Lebanon. The Lebanese people want to see their country on a path to recovery. They care less about Hezbollah’s interests, and recent developments have proven that their opposition to Hezbollah’s brutal practices is growing exponentially by the day. We choose the people over Hezbollah. We will stand with the Lebanese people to achieve their goals and restore Lebanon to its rightful place.
MY: In light of the Kahaleh incident, which has widened the rift between many Christians and Hezbollah, how easy will it be for the FPM leader Gebran Bassil to come to an agreement with Hezbollah over a president, especially if it means Bassil’s approval for the party’s candidate, Suleiman Franjieh, whom many Christians regard as unrepresentative of their community?
MS: We are not in a position to speak or speculate on behalf of the FPM. We have our own values and beliefs, and these guide our actions and positions. The Kahaleh incident showed that the sentiments and reactions of the Christian community are in line with the positions of the Lebanese Forces Party. This event highlighted the growing resentment of the Lebanese people, both Christian and non-Christian, toward Hezbollah’s project and behavior. The people are willing to confront Hezbollah, despite the asymmetrical balance of power between civil groups bolstered by laws and the constitution and a heavily armed group that follows a clear external agenda. We believe the Lebanese people are looking for a real president who is willing to confront Hezbollah as bravely as they are. Therefore, every party should build its positions based on the people’s sentiment.
The FPM, like any other party, has to choose between a deal with Hezbollah that will allow Hezbollah to impose its candidate on the Lebanese, or advocacy for democracy and constitutional processes that allow for the election of a president who can represent the interests of the people. The Lebanese Forces Party has already taken a clear position in this regard. It is up to others, including the FPM, to choose which side they’re on.
