By Denis Korkodinov
The protests in Lebanon served as the basis for a new political reality in the country. Nationwide demonstrations, accompanied by unsystematic acts of civil disobedience, quickly gained a clear program of action. Now the protesters are organizing sit-ins, demanding a change in the entire political regime.
At the same time, recent interfaith disputes between minority Christians, Sunnis and Shiites have faded into the background. For this reason, the protests in Lebanon are of regional importance as an example of the fact that people within a single state can act as a single organism.
The Lebanese protest was triggered by economic problems caused by ineffective cabinet reforms led by Saad al-Hariri. In addition, a series of fires that destroyed a significant part of the country’s forests, as well as an increase in taxes, increased the alarm of ordinary Lebanese for their future. The government of Beirut was clearly not ready for such a development of events, finding itself in a state of stupor. This was a trigger for the manifestation of popular anger.
The people of Lebanon questioned the political regime established on the basis of the 1989 Taif Treaty. In addition, the modern protest movement has clearly demonstrated that the interfaith differences that have developed over 400 years under the control of the Ottoman Empire have lost their significance.
It would seem that an attempt by the Saad al-Hariri government in 2017 to carry out political reform could lead to a recovery of the state. At least, the new election law for the first time provided for a proportional representation system without taking into account religious quotas. However, the Lebanese parliamentary elections in May 2018 showed that there were no changes in the practice of allocating seats. Thus, political reform was perceived by ordinary Lebanese as falsification.
The radicalization of the modern political movement took place on November 12, 2019, when President Michelle Aung, in his official speech, threatened the participants in the demonstrations with violence. This was the reason that people began to use new methods of civil disobedience: “living chains” connecting the South and North of Lebanon, mass sit-ins.
At that moment, the crowd could still be pacified, guaranteeing it a constructive dialogue with officials and politicians. However, the Lebanese law enforcement agencies made a big mistake, as a result of which the protest will continue until a coup d’etat takes place in the country. So, under the influence of statements by Michel Aoun, a soldier killed one protester. This was the third victim who became the banner of protests in Lebanon.
Against this background, Washington decided to block investment in the Lebanese economy in the amount of $ 105 million. Such an act of the Donald Trump administration was clearly intended that the protesters, having learned about the freezing of economic assistance, would act more decisively, seeking to overthrow the existing state system. In turn, this significantly weakened the role of influence groups in Beirut, which turned out to be completely defenseless against the backdrop of protests.
(The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of World Geostrategic Insights)