Rethinking Lebanon's mechanisms: Arab debate on a radical political change

Preparations for the upcoming Arab Summit in Saudi Arabia are still ongoing. In addition to the significant issue of inviting Syria to attend, Lebanon has also been a topic of discussion.

Due to the current situation, Lebanon will be represented by the caretaker Prime Minister, Najib Mikati, as there has been a deadlock in electing a President.

 

However, this has opened continued communication between Arab countries regarding the Lebanese issue, which is in parallel with the ongoing French-Saudi communications.

Nevertheless, the Arab debate attempts to raise many questions about Lebanon's future and its formulation. There is a consensus on the necessity of a political change, even if it affects political classes, especially in light of the Arab forces' insistence on the need to implement the Taif Agreement, which means entering a new stage of the Taif political phases, and this requires imposing many variables.

Furthermore, what some Arab forces seek to establish in Lebanon is to reach the conviction that the political class must be convinced of the need for a radical change, even if it requires the absence of political figures, especially since it is no longer possible to repeat previous experiences in light of the country's collapse.

However, some officials find it striking that the Arab emphasis on the change in Lebanon contradicts the developments in Syria. Several Arab countries seek to invite President Bashar al-Assad to deal with him in light of this reality and, therefore, no longer looking for change.

Meanwhile, an opposing point of view is that the Arab path opened with Damascus aims to establish a change later on. If that is not achieved, communication and development will not continue, and a political solution will not be reached.

Returning to Lebanon, and based on this call for change, some Arab officials consider that after all the collapses it is experiencing along with political, banking, and financial scandals, Lebanon cannot rise again with the exact mechanisms.

Therefore, it is necessary to search for new equations, even if they are unrealistic for some Lebanese or foreign powers. This is a direct response to the French proposal, which considers electing Sleiman Franjieh as president realistic and necessary. At the same time, this contradicts all French talks and Paris' proposals about the need for reform.

One of the discussions raised in the Arab world is the necessity for Lebanon to enter a new phase. If its title is the entry into the "new Taif," meaning applying the agreement as it is and not as it was. In that case, it requires significant changes in the political class that forms the government and a radical change in the political, economic, and financial interaction mechanism.

Especially since Lebanon's exit from the war phase in the 1990s and entering the Taif era in its Syrian version also required a significant change in the Lebanese political class and the entry of new elements into the ruling class. This is what is supposed to happen today if the pursuit of recovery and salvation is severe and the exit from the rationality of a president for a party in return for a Prime Minister for another party.

In conclusion, the Arab debate remains ongoing regarding the specifications of a president and Prime Minister in an attempt to respond to the French approach.