Father Lazarus Abboud
This is the third year since the Lebanese revolution, which many people see as having failed and as the cause of the deterioration of Lebanon’s social and economic situation. But by reading it carefully and consciously we discover its great historical value in the modern era of the Levant, and the magnitude of the great earthquake that struck the heart of the sectarian system and its corruption. Perhaps people judge what happened by what followed it — an economic situation of high prices and poverty — and this, unfortunately, is not correct. Rather, this is what the revolution uncovered, for reality was revealed to show that the previous prosperity was nothing but an illusion and a mirage; that is, everything was built upon sand.
But does this revolution not have merits and achievements, and did it succeed in bringing about change? Of course, without overlooking that what ignited its fuse was an economic and social cause.
1. Its merits:
The first historical revolution since the 1880s, since the sectarian system began to take shape, and it revealed what brings the Lebanese together and unites them, namely their belonging to Lebanon and not to their sects.
And because it was a revolution without leadership, it was a true revolution — a revolution that does not seek to rule and replace one authority with another, but rather a revolution that seeks real change from which the people produce their own leaderships.
Everyone moved with remarkable refinement, through thought, values, moral convictions, and national values, and they did not gather through some ideology or some party.
A revolution against the Lebanese sectarian system and the prevailing culture — a culture of sectarian division and sectarian quotas — and it occurred at a sensitive time when work is being done to entrench the sectarian system instead of being in the stages of its end, as was agreed at Taif.
2. Its achievements:
The revolution arose upon the general Lebanese political, sectarian, and confessional climate; it was a general revolution and was not directed against any particular current. The revolution struck the heart of the sectarian system on both its sides — the religious institutions and the sectarian political parties.
The revolution exposed everyone, so the religious leaders appeared in the guise of the closest ally of the authorities, and the religious (ecclesiastical) leaderships will be losers in the coming stages if they do not play a role in building democracy and citizenship, just as the Church in Europe played a role in the democratic transformation. It revealed that the struggles of the politicians are nothing but a struggle over quotas and not for building the country, and it showed that the leaders are enemies of openness; at the start of the revolution they stood together. It became clear that civic life and citizenship, which I believed to be inapplicable, is a popular demand. The image of that elderly woman does not leave my mind: when the broadcaster asked her, “What are your demands, auntie?” she said to him: “We want a state of citizenship, and for all of us to be equal to one another.” Here we are speaking of an elderly Shiite woman from the South.
It exposed all the voices that called for reform among the religious and political leaderships, and it showed that the popular divisions are nothing but the offspring of conflicts manufactured by the leaders in order to control their peoples.
The largest popular gatherings were in Tripoli, in Al-Nour Square, and included citizens from all sects and religions. A person from a sect different from the people of Tripoli said: “This is the first time I come to Tripoli, and we discovered that they are our brothers and that their concern is our concern.”
3. Problems of engagement
The problems lie in how the people dealt with it. Many believed that the revolution would change everything within two days, whereas the revolution performed its first role, which is opening the door to change. The revolution does not bring about a change of authority; rather, it opens the door and creates a new reality. Talk of immediate change is in truth empty and cannot be realized, nor should it be the basis. For every revolution that changes the authority and brings in a new authority immediately, without passing through the stages of democratic birth pangs, will inevitably produce a worse and more dictatorial system, like the Bolshevik revolution.
The most important thing the revolution did was to open the door to change — indeed, it tore it off its hinges. Change is not like planting mint from which we eat the next day, but rather like the palm tree that fathers plant for their grandchildren to eat from, not for their sons. Change requires effort; the Lord says “Give blood and receive spirit.” This is what Dr. Azmi Bishara confirms: ”What is happening in Lebanon is an immediate condition, but it is on its way to taking Lebanon out of the sectarian condition, for what is happening in Lebanon is historic because of the depth of the Lebanese sectarian system governed by quotas in everything. Yet it is difficult to imagine removing the sectarian system there overnight. Nevertheless, what will ultimately prevail is this non-sectarian current.”
The difficulty of change in Lebanon lies in the dispersal of the centers of power and leadership because the system is sectarian; there are many leaderships distributed according to sects. Therefore, the experience of the Lebanese revolution is a new experience in its pattern and its subject. The subject in Lebanon is the sectarian system, and its battle is not within the visible horizon and requires work by every person in his job and his work, and in his belonging to a party, to change the methodology of the parties and their thinking and to bring them out of their rigidity.
The second problem is the attempt to turn the revolution into a party or a bloc, and to pin change on a group that succeeded in the elections in changing the sectarian system. It is noteworthy that the failure or success of the revolution is assessed by the ability of a group of new members to bring about real change immediately; this is pure fantasy. They only managed to open the door for those outside the authority to enter the legislative council. The revolution is a door and the revolutionaries are its gatekeepers.
Conclusion
It is rightly called the Lebanese revolution the revolution of awareness, and it fulfilled the saying of Jesus” “And no one puts new wine into old wineskins, lest the new wine burst the wineskins, and the wine is spilled and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into new wineskins.”” (Mk 2:22).
And the future of any nation through change begins with a revolution that opens its door and throws it wide open. The revolution does not remain a revolution; rather, it moves to new stages of change through long stages, for Europe did not reach what it is today in days, months, or years — it took decades, and it passed through many setbacks. What matters is that it came through birth pangs, and everyone must “choose the birth pangs” as one lawyer says, and everyone must water it, each from his place and his work, and God causes this change to grow. Lebanon is a gateway to the future of the East, and with it the future of Syria; it is the most important, being the true key to building civic, civil Eastern nations. There is a hope that has shone from the future, for the resurrection is coming.
