Amidst the overwhelming pessimism in the country, I find myself, quite oddly, on the other side of the hill. I actually am content with the political situation: not the blockage of the Parliament, nor the unrelieved opposition still opposing, nor the incessant fear of yet another explosion, nor the aftermath of both the Nahr el-Bared war and the July 2006 Israeli war.

What strikes me as fabulous is the glory of the Lebanese finally putting their democracy at test.

I have come to realize that ever since the Independence Intifada of 2005, and the National Dialogue, Lebanese parties have come to examine various matters. Divergence is well present, typically with every single national internal issue: the legitimacy of the Siniora government, the identity of the new President, the legitimacy of Hezbollah's armed forces… are all areas of political conflict.

Surprisingly, on another hand, an international one, the many factions constituting the Lebanese political society have come to agree: first on the Israeli conflict in 2006, then on the Nahr el-Bared conflict in 2007, also on the issue of disarming Palestinians outside refugee camps. In addition, the renewal of diplomatic ties with Syria is, finally, not a revolting idea anymore.

Consequently, one can audaciously consider that the main titles under which Lebanon's future lies are well agreed upon by the entire political posse. 

What has come to happen ever since the Spring Revolution is nothing but a race to grapple as much power as every side can. The elections of June 2005, as controversial as they were, came as an expression of, at the time, what factions thought would serve their personal best interests. Alliances were built in an effort to hold power and command in the New Lebanon.

This might not be that bad after all.

Why can't we entertain the possibility that democracy is at play, here and now?

Why must we, today, still live with the obsession of resolving all matters by consensus? Why isn't a political battle, fought with dignity, worth fighting?

Are we doomed to live forever in a confessional carousel?

Certainly, circumstances are critical, and the country's future is t stake. Desperate times do require desperate measures. Hence a consensus to avoid confrontation.

But if we keep postponing our meeting with democracy, it finally might back off– for good.

The international community today rightfully assumes that the Lebanese are incapable of deciding of even the smallest matter. That logically is why it is made so easy for international pawns to meddle in Lebanese internal affairs.

I am certainly not saying Lebanese political figures must all neglect foreign pressure; while that it unquestionably a utopist scenario, it remains wishful thinking.

I understand it is the Lebanese parties that, after failing to launch a regular political cycle in 2005, have called for foreign interference in the decision-making process.

The US, Europe, and others therefore cannot be blamed for taking the initiative in prying in local issues. I do however blame them for not knowing better.

As much as they were indeed indispensable for returning the Lebanese sovereignty to its people, they should have responsibly bowed out of the internal political scene.

If we come crying to you for a solution to an internal problem, send us away! Tell us it is not your business anymore. Tell us we are ready to settle our own problems.

Make us believe it!

The whole world knows you are a superpower. The title comes with a certain duty to guide, wisely, emerging-or reemerging- democracies.

Sarkozy said it best in his speech before the US Congress on November 7^th, 2007.

Fears of a new civil war in Lebanon are overrated.

Specifically after the ongoing politically tragic period the country has been traversing, one cannot solely point out the failures the Lebanese had in missing a chance to get off on a better foot. Undeniably, we could've done better. But what we did accomplish is everything but petty. We did grasp the opportunity when we saw that the US would allow for the Syrian regime to let loose of Lebanon, which alone is worth congratulating.

After that, what did you expect? For every single party to come together with the other in awe? If so, you expected a consensus, and that is why you are disappointed.

But do you really want to fall again into the fragility of a broken and forced accord? 

Isn't a rigid democracy worth a thousand foreign-defined regimes?

It is a sign of a functioning, healthy system when several parties deem right to govern. It is in itself a source of diversity, of renewal, of counter power, of, heaven forbid, 'opposition and ruling majority', nuts and bolts of a free democracy!

March 8 and March 14 are artificial divisions. They are merely political alliances set out to gather power: a smart strategic approach to consolidate supporters. But it still does not make it crystal-clear. Lebanon bears no place for supporters of anything short of March 14 (the actual day that is, not the present political gathering). Principles acclaimed that day are embedded in our patriotism. Hezbollah may have a particular way of agreeing to that, and the Free Patriotic Movement, General Aoun's party, admittedly was the foremost participant in the Cedar Revolution.

Thus, the 8/14 division is one of the unfortunate consequences following the ill-fated 2005 parliamentary elections. But that is all it is. None of both gatherings is pro-Syria. None of them is against Lebanon's sovereignty, security, prosperity, and social equality.

We have to believe that.

Simply put, every faction inside every power bloc wants to have its share in governing the New Lebanon, indisputably common to both.

You don't have to associate yourself to either camp.

You don't have to despise the other.

You don't have to deny that nothing vital opposes both parties.

You don't have to agree on a President; it was never your job to do so.

Anonymous ASG alumnus