Paris of the Middle East

More than most countries, Lebanon  exists at a perpetual crossroads. Crisis and conflict seem to wait around every corner. Powerful foreign entities weigh in with their own agendas, sometimes with guns, sometimes with money, and sometimes with both.

At the time of this writing, less than three months before the parliamentary elections, the country is thriving. Restaurants are busy, business in the shops seems to be brisk. Beirut was recently selected by the New York Times as the number one tourist destination in the world. Lebanon seems to be, at least for now, returning to it’s glory days as the Paris of the Middle East.

However, echoing the above sentiments, the corresponding description offered by the Times in the article characterized the peace in Lebanon as “tenuous”. There is a general atmosphere of calm here in the capital. People are cautious in the face of the looming parliamentary elections. No one knows how smoothly they will go or how gracious the loser’s will be in the defeat.

Over the past fifteen years, the political landscape here has changed greatly. In 1992, Hizballah, at a crossroads of its own, decided to participate in the parliamentary elections. Since then, the Party of God has made continual progress on the national scene and the once-disenfranchised Lebanese Shiites have found themselves a champion. After expelling Israel in 2000, it was clear that Hizballah was a formidable fighting force. But in the absence of its raison d’etre, the resistance of Israel, it was unclear what the next phase of the Party would look like.

Hizballah used the popularity and credibility gained in 2000 to bolster its investment in the complicated Lebanese political system. To the delight of many, Hizballah seemed to be undergoing a natural evolution towards peaceful participating in the political process. With no one left to fight with, the group would have to justify it’s existence in other ways and it’s willing participation in Lebanese government was encouraging to those working for peace in the region.

With a peaceful southern front, Lebanon was no longer in need of it’s guerrilla protector. It seemed reasonable that after Israel’s expulsion, and Hizballah’s participation in formal Lebanese politics, that Hizballah would consent to disarmament. Maybe, the thinking went, it would even roll its military wing into the Lebanese Army. A debate ensued. People asked Hizballah to relinquish its weapons and Hizballah refused on the grounds that, one, the threat of Israeli invasion still exists, and two, the current Lebanese army is incapable if defending the country from an Israeli invasion.

Then came the War of 2006. In a little over a month, Hizballah once again vanquished one of the worlds most mighty militaries. While the brief war cost the group in national political capital for drawing Lebanon into yet another war, the credibility that Hizballah gained in the Arab world, and internationally in general, was priceless.

Abdul Nasr, Hafez Assad, King Hussein, Yasar Arafat- Hizballah accomplished what none of these men could: a clear and decisive victory over Israel. The group’s leader since 1992, Hassan Nassrallah, was catapulted to super-stardom in the Muslim world. The victory of 2006 bought the group more time before the old calls for disarmament would begin again.

Flash forward to March 2009. With its extensive social programs, excellent schools, fine hospitals (all believed to be funded by Iran) and its reputation for being credible, scrupulous and beyond the corruption that plagues so many parts of the developing world, Hizballah is poised to make major gains in the 2009 parliamentary elections- gains that could change the political landscape in this country for years to come.

But even if the results are positive for Hizballah, but not quite the landslide that some foresee, its progress in Lebanese parliament remains a constant. All this demands the question of what would a Lebanon controlled by Hizballah look like?

Walking down the street in Beirut today in 2009, one can’t help pondering what it must have been like to be doing the same thing in Tehran in the mid 1970s. This from the Los Angeles Times:

“For the time being, Lebanon is flourishing. A plethora of newspapers and television stations air a variety of viewpoints. Political candidates vigorously debate the issues, including the possibility of normalizing ties with Israel. Beirut, a war zone not so long ago, once again feels like the Paris of the Middle East. Fashionably dressed young people party late into the night at bars and clubs where the booze flows freely. There are more burkas visible in London than in Beirut.”

In 1979, a once liberal, vibrant, and cosmopolitan Iran was transformed into the oppressive military-theocracy that exists today (the Shah not without blame). Opposing opinions and dissent are ruthlessly and routinely extinguished. A democracy on paper only, a shadowy and all powerful group of men control everything. For its entire existence, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been an international outcast that is forced to wield power and further its agenda by use of proxies, such as Hizballah.

Hizballah was formed with Iranian money and weapons in the early 1980’s. The Ayatollah Khomeini dispatched his Revolutionary Guards to Lebanon to assist in the training. Hizballah enjoys full sponsorship of Tehran to this day and the group’s leader Hassan Nasrallah is believed by many to answer to Tehran.

So it stands to reason that if Hizballah continues to make substantial gains in Lebanese politics, might the day come where Beirut resemble less the bustling, top tourist destination in the world and more the dusty streets of ultra-conservative Tehran, devoid of debate and dissent?

Hizballah has stated that it will not turn Lebanon into an Islamic state against the will of the people, with Nasrallah going as far as saying that, “We believe the requirement for an Islamic state is to have an overwhelming popular desire, and we’re not talking about fifty percent plus one, but a large majority. And this is not available in Lebanon and probably never will be.”

With very large and powerful Christian and Sunni populations, it does indeed seem almost far fetched that they would chose to live under sharia law governed by a group of Shiites that only answer to the Ayatollah in Tehran like some Persian Pope.

Hizballah has carried its people an incredible distance since its creation. Once a group seemingly forever condemned to occupy the lowest rungs of the Lebanese social/political/economic ladder, the Shiites of Lebanon and throughout the world have been given hope and dignity from their champion, Hassan Nasrallah and Hizballah.

The Shia Revolution that started in Tehran in 1979 continues with renewed strength and vigor today throughout the Muslim world because of Hizballah under the leadership of Nasrallah. What remains to be seen is what final form that revolution will take here in Lebanon if things continue to progress the way they are.

While being far from perfect, Lebanon is at a good place right now. Its peaceful, relatively stable, and the debate in the shadow of the elections is vibrant. Shiite gains in the 2009 elections could be another positive step in Lebanon’s transformation towards a political system where everyone has an equal voice. If Hizballah wins big in June and in future elections, it will be interesting to see what Hizballah does with that voice.

It would be nice to come back here from year to year and visit roughly the same place each time. If Nasrallah keeps his word, those visits will remind people less of Tehran, and more like the Paris of the Middle East.