Wisdom or Laxity?

Does Hariri-style centrism work?

Yesterday, In the ceremony of unveiling a statue of our “Independence President” Bshara el Khoury, P.M. Seniora made a speech in which he said:

Our movement is one of action, action towards consensus and consent, towards the spirit of political compromise that was achieved by the great men of our independence

He further explained that this was the philosophy of the Late P.M Rafik Hariri, one of inclusion, not exclusion, of dialogue, not confrontation. In the end, P.M. Seniora concluded that our history taught us that Hariri’s kind of centrism is the only way Lebanon can be developed and built.

Contrast Seniora’s statement with what William Buckley, the godfather of today’s conservative America, wrote some time ago:

“Middle of the road qua middle of the road is politically, intellectually and morally repugnant,”

Mr. Buckley’s philosophy, faithfully carried out by Carl Rove today, is one of active polarization, of confrontation, of a never-ending tug-of-war, of pushing your agenda through by sticking to your guns.
Buckley’s way was the exact opposite of Hariri’s, yet it was so effective it changed the entire landscape in Washington, from one dominated by liberals, to one dominated by conservatives; The Economist has a nice way of putting it:

Throw a stone in Washington and you have a better than even chance of hitting a conservative intellectual. Switch on cable-television and you are lucky if you can escape seeing a conservative pundit.

In Lebanon today, our Prime Minister is trying to sell us the Hariri centrist line in a time where we need confrontation more than ever. It is unclear for instance, how talking with Hezbollah will disarm them, or talking to Aoun will convince him to let go of the presidency. Seniora seems even more benign than the late Hariri, because he’s older, speaks softer, looks more harmless and has a better poker face. But is centrism really the best way to go about politics in Lebanon?

Those who advocate dialogue always say that we are living in delicate times, that we have to avoid all kinds of adversity to be able to reach to safety.
Fine, but one should also remember that our wariness of adversity is exaggerated because of our long years of war. We have once been burnt so we’re now scared of getting close to anything that’s shiny because it might burn us. Whatever happened to “everything that doesn’t kill us is makes us stronger” or to the principle of democracy correcting itself?. Can’t our system handle any form of confrontation without having the specter of war hover over our heads?

The other argument for dialogue is that it actually gets popularity and it works.
A lot of people like to say that P.M. Hariri bought his popularity with money, but that’s untrue. Mr. Hariri was genuinely popular because of his perceived level-headedness and moderation. He managed to build the country by avoiding any form of confrontation with the Syrians. Besides, proponent say that if centrism didn’t work, P.M. Seniora wouldn’t be the one undergoing constant attack from all parties today (a sign that he’s making a difference).

Some people even say that Hariri-Style moderation is just a mask for cold-blooded cunning. N’oula Nassif, an Annahar editorialist, said on a T.V. program today that Seniora is publicly pursuing dialogue with the President, but is privately satisfied that the lifeline he’s giving him is shielding him from complete isolation, which lets Lahhoud stay as a weak president and further strengthen the (Moslem) P.M’s power.

I personally haven’t made up my mind yet. I sometimes seethe with anger at Seniora’s inaction and bonté, only to realize a week later that it was the proper course to take. But Hezbollah keeps getting on my nerves, and I can’t see Seniora protecting my loved-ones from them.

Martyr Hariri talked till he dropped…literally. I wish Mr. Seniora could be a bit more firm.