The multilayered reality of Lebanese politics, even one endorsed by the two main factions in the country, even one that may spare the country the terrible outcome of immediate conflict, may not stick unless a wider range of politicians offer their consent. This is the lesson that the Future Movement and Hizbullah, seen by many as the country's two most powerful factions, learned last week. A surprise deal between the Future Movement and Hizbullah to form a unified government seemed like a godsend to the country that has been looking into the abyss of civil war because of the fallout of the Syrian conflict. But the deal, brokered by the Amal Movement and Prime Minister-Designate Tamam Sallam, has run into opposition from the country's top Christian politicians, who feel that they were not consulted properly ahead of time. For long months, the Future Movement, which mostly speaks for the Sunni community, said that it wasn't prepared to partner in government with Hizbullah unless the latter pulls out of Syria. The Future Movement also pointed out that it cannot allow any partner in government to have a “controlling third”, or one third of the cabinet seats plus one — a ratio that allows the partner in question veto power over government decisions. Meanwhile, the 8 March alliance, led by Hizbullah, held on to the “controlling third” and wanted the cabinet statement to include a clear reference to the three-way cooperation of “nation, army, and resistance”. But when both sides edged closer to agreement, top Christian politicians, who have been left out of the deal, voiced their indignation. General Michel Aoun, leader of the Free Patriotic Movement, a crucial ally of Hizbullah, rejected the deal out of hand, saying that he wasn't consulted. Aoun, who controls the crucial Ministry of Energy and Water, held by his brother-in-law Jibran Basil in the current care-taking government, was going to lose this ministry if the deal between Hizbullah and the Future Movement went through. The deal specifically mentions that no party is allowed to hold one ministry indefinitely, as this compromises the integrity of government administration. Speaking in a press conference, Aoun said that depriving him of this ministry would be unfair to the Christian community, as well as a violation of Lebanon's political tradition. Another member of the 14 March alliance, the Lebanese Forces of Samir Gargea, voiced similar reservations, saying that the cabinet statement should mention the Baabda Declaration, which advises Lebanon to stay out of the internal affairs of other countries. The objections cannot be ignored by the Shia Hizbullah and the Sunni Future Movement, as neither has the power to move forward without the backing of Christian allies. The stalemate has a bit of history behind it. Traditionally, the Lebanese Christians, especially the Maronites, have been the most powerful faction in the country, both politically and economically. All this has changed in the past few decades, especially since the end of the Lebanese Civil War, which took away some of the privileges of the Christians and gave it to the Sunnis and Shias. The current political system is based on a 50-50 partnership between Muslims and Christians. The formula was enshrined in Al-Taef Agreement, which curtailed the powers of the Christian president. Since then, Christian political clout in the country has ebbed, leaving behind a sense of loss and marginalisation. Demographics, and not just power politics, played a role in the shift. When Lebanon's first census was taken in 1932, the Christians were 59.2 per cent of the population. Now they are 35 per cent or so, although the government has ceased to release census figures. Once in control of the country's business, Christians have been outshone by the Sunnis and Shias, who were able to bank on their close relations with Gulf countries and Iran. This situation left the Christians in a political limbo, with some of them, such as the Phalanges, joining the 14 March alliance of the Future Movement, and others, such as the Free Patriotic Movement, backing the 8 March alliance of Hizbullah. When the conflict erupted in Syria, the Christians wanted no part of it. Unlike the Sunnis, some of whom stood by some extremist military outfits, such as Al-Nusra Front, and the Shias who offered decisive backing to Al-Assad's regime, the Christians stood on the fence. This minimised their losses in the bloody skirmishes that took place in Lebanese cities, but it also made them less relevant — a role to which they are not used. Christian Lebanese leaders, in a nutshell, are not used to playing second fiddle in the country's politics. And now — for what it is worth — they are willing to assert themselves even if this means scuttling a deal that could have spared the country a major conflagration at a crucial moment in its history. It was jarring for the Christians to be excluded from the preliminary negotiations between Hizbullah and the Future Movement. This may explain why General Aoun and Samir Gargea are so adamant on protecting whatever stature they managed to salvage in the shifting scene of Lebanon's politics. Aoun sees himself as a leader of the Christians, so when he is not consulted, he considers this an affront to Lebanon's entire Christian population. At one point, the Lebanese energy minister stated that the Ministry of Energy was a “guarantee” to Lebanese Christians against political marginalisation. This puts Hizbullah in a difficult position. On the one hand, it is eager to stay on the good side of its hot-tempered ally, General Aoun. On the other, it cannot afford to turn down the opportunity of reconciliation with the Future Movement, even in the form of a government partnership doomed to end in May, when the country holds its presidential elections. The Aoun-Hizbullah alliance is one of the most important for the party, as it is the one alliance that gave the 8 March legitimacy in the first place. Without Aoun, 8 March is nothing more than a pro-Syrian alliance. Also, if Aoun walks out of the 8 March alliance, Hizbullah will no longer have the “controlling third” that gave it such hold on Lebanese politics for the past few years. Saad Al-Hariri, leader of the Future Movement, calls his prospective partnership with Hizbullah in government a stop-conflict deal. But for now, the stop-conflict deal has been blocked by powerful politicians, fearful of losing the last vestiges of power the Christians enjoy in Lebanon.
