Lebanon is at a historic crossroad. It can choose to lead the Middle East into vibrant multi-sectarian democracy or slump back into corrupt local politics under foreign tutelage. The latter path could easily lead to civil strife and, perhaps, another civil war.

At this very moment, Lebanon’s political leaders are meeting jointly for the first time in the country’s modern history without the interference of Syria, France, or the United States. Everyone from Saad Hariri, the son of our murdered Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, to Hizbullah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, is present to discuss openly the issues that divide the country, as are the leaders of Lebanon’s Shiia, Sunni, Greek Orthodox, Maronite Christian, and Druze communities.

This national dialogue, held under security measures that have basically shut down central Beirut, began March 2 and is expected to last up to ten days. But one player is missing: Emile Lahoud, who claims Lebanon’s presidency as his by right of Syrian power. Lahoud’s absence is not surprising, as the discussions deal with the fate of his illegal presidency and how to break the deadlock that his continuance in office has imposed on the country.

Indeed, just as Lahoud’s chair at the talks is vacant, so – in the eyes of the world and under the country’s 150-year old constitution – is Lebanon’s presidency. It has been vacant since September 2004 when Lahoud, backed by Syria, forced an extension of his six-year term on the Lebanese parliament, which elects the president.

We Lebanese can already claim victory in our year-long non-violent fight for independence and democracy. We have succeeded in placing the issue of the presidency at center stage in Lebanese politics. Parliament Speaker Nabih Birri, Hizbullah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, and Michel Aoun, leader of the Free Patriotic Movement, remain reluctant participants in the search for a new head of state. Nevertheless, the election of a new, democratic, and lawful president has become accepted nationally as a necessary point of departure from the murderous path taken by the country with the extension of Lahoud’s mandate.

This was clearly demonstrated on February 14, when roughly a million people assembled to commemorate the first anniversary of Rafik Hariri’s assassination. The crowd’s sole demand was that Lahoud step down. On that day, I urged Druze leader Walid Jumblatt and Future Movement leader Saad Hariri, a Sunni and the political heir of his slain father, to make this their paramount slogan.

The democratic movement’s main objective is to bring about a non-violent, constitutional process to replace Lahoud with a new president in free and open elections. In this we have the clear support of the international community, with the United Nations Security Council giving its unanimous support to my demand for presidential elections. On January 23, the Security Council issued a statement expressing regret that the conduct of “free and fair presidential elections” had not yet been carried out in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1559, which was passed on the eve of Lahoud’s extension.

At a historic gathering of the parliamentary majority on February 16, I presented a four-step process to complete, in a constitutional manner, our non-violent revolt against foreign power. First, the popular and parliamentary majority in Lebanon must declare that no solution is possible without the election of a new president. Second, a majority of parliamentarians must sign a petition declaring null and void the extension of Lahoud’s term. Third, the parliamentary majority must formally acknowledge Lahoud’s illegitimacy. Finally, Lebanon must elect a new president.

With the national dialogue now underway, we are in the midst of phase three. If, during this dialogue, a consensus is reached on the need to elect a new president, so much the better. If not, phases three and four will be completed by other means.

Lahoud has become irrelevant. Once the president’s illegitimacy is formally acknowledged by a majority of parliamentarians, all his acts will be considered beyond his constitutional powers, and the process of electing a new president will be firmly on track. This can only be reversed by violence, which is unlikely, so strong is the consensus that Lebanon needs a new president, and so ingrained is the rejection of force by all Lebanese. While we must be vigilant in preventing extremist groups from derailing the process, the best way to do so is to accelerate transformation at the top.

As for me, I realize that in seeking Lebanon’s presidency, we must look to the future. That is why I offer a program that addresses such key issues as the effective representation of women in government, the need to urgently address environmental problems, to strengthen rule of law, transparency, and accountability, and to move toward universal suffrage in the election of top executive positions. I have also emphasized that Lebanon must develop its comparative advantages, particularly in education, banking, and services. All these issues have now become part of the national debate.

Lebanon’s traditional political class may not like it, but, as more of its members are now recognizing, the momentum for a new kind of presidency will not be stopped.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2006.
www.project-syndicate.org