What is going on between the Free Patriotic Movement and Hezbollah? It is the question that has dominated everything after the cabinet session exposed a serious crisis in their alliance, whose mutual understanding has acted as a rock that has defied all attempts to split them apart.
The two parties' disagreements over internal issues are not new, but some have called the current situation a "non-transient crisis" surrounded by many interpretations about a new positioning initiated by head of the "Strong Lebanon" bloc MP Gebran Bassil, at a moment of discord with the party over the presidential file.
It has been established that the party is discontent with Basil for a number of reasons, chief among them the failure to form a government before President Michel Aoun's term expires and Bassil's stance on participating in the session, despite the party's efforts to limit the agenda to necessary items.
Bassil certainly has grievances against the party that go beyond a ministerial session which brought the alliance into a difficult stage. Still, it is not impossible to remove the danger of a political split-up, given that, by their own admission, it would be detrimental to both parties.
Despite the FPM's reaction to the party's position, it was clear that there was a decision by Hezbollah not to be drawn into any political or media clash. Prominent political sources considered that despite the uproar that Bassil made in his press conference, what the head of the movement said," remains under the ceiling of mobilization that Hezbollah has become accustomed to."
When political forces were preoccupied with the “consequences” of the shake-up that hit this relationship, questions remained on the main reasons that prompted Hezbollah to send an “in-depth” message to Basil that ignited the risks around their relationship.
Insiders summarize the position by saying that “the party is the first one accused today of obstructing the presidential elections, and cannot boycott the government sessions, so it is also held responsible for disrupting the cabinet sessions, with all the circumstances that indicate that the vacuum is very long.”
By extension, opponents will hold the party accountable for any harm done to the parties whose agendas addressed matters that they found important, particularly in relation to hospitals, patients, and the issue of medications.
Additionally, "the party intended to tell Bassil he must give up his absurd refusals, in terms of his refusal to dialogue about the presidency and his previous refusal to form a government or to give confidence to a government in which he was confirmed to have at least eight ministers and refuses to discuss the presidency file except from his perspective, in isolation from Hezbollah's considerations."
Both the party and the movement undoubtedly worry about the tense relationship, which the sources described as being in a stage of "more than differentiation and less than separation," a stage that calls for "real dialogue and deep discussion on the file under the roof of non-separation," but one that "needs some time until things calm down, and the party's pent-up anger settles against Basil, and the latter empties all his anger."
However, the climate that seemed to escalate on the part of Hezbollah by adopting the government session does not accurately reflect the party's point of view, which insists on returning to dialogue with Bassil and the Free Patriotic Movement to reach an understanding on many matters, not least of which is the presidential file. Insiders say that the party has never taken the initiative to take a position or step on public benefits before discussing and consulting with the FPM.
And in the event of a lack of understanding between the two parties on a position on a specific issue, the party does not obligate the FPM to its opinion and does not want the FPM to oblige it to its prior position. In an indication that the party acknowledges the existence of distinctions between it and the FPM in the approach to internal files, which was evident in assigning Prime Minister Najib Mikati to form the government.
However, this does not mean that the entire relationship between the party and the movement must be “mortgaged” to a specific story or event, especially since the party does not see the issue of convening the government as a national crisis of the scale portrayed by the Free Patriotic Movement.