Complex loyalties are holding Lebanon together, but only just, writes Ammar Ali Hassan* British novelist Graham Greene once said it was better to betray one's country than one's friends. His compatriot Virginia Woolf once said that as a woman she felt as if she had no country. Greene was speaking of his loyalty to like-minded people regardless of origin. Woolf was referring to the common bonds among women everywhere. What both understood is that loyalty is a mixed blessing. There is always a hierarchy of loyalty. One's loyalty is to country, another is to class or religion, and a third is to family and clan, or even firm. Most people have a way of reconciling these loyalties, but the process of reconciliation is not always smooth. Loyalty is good for stability. Loyalty is what makes a people stick together. And without loyalty, higher national interests would mean nothing. This is why despotic as well as democratic regimes, conservative as well as revolutionary ones, agree on the need for loyalty. In countries where a small group of people monopolise power, where the rotation of power is limited or non-existent, stability is the main quest of the state. The regime advocates the status quo and promotes it as an end in itself. In revolutionary regimes, the state is constantly trying to recruit loyalists and rally them behind its agenda, behind goals that may involve radical change in society. Even in democratic states, governments are always trying to rally public opinion behind economic and political goals, which is in itself homage to the rights of citizenry. All regimes need the loyalty of their people, especially during internal and external crises. But loyalty is not a monolithic idea. People have many loyalties, crisscrossing each other and entangled, forming an intricate tapestry of emotional and cognitive bias. As the old saying goes, "it takes all kinds." There are many reasons for people to have different loyalties. One is that power is unevenly distributed. Conventions differ from one locale to another. The psychological and social background of individuals varies across time, class and culture. The material and moral strength of various individuals are asymmetrical. And our political clout, wealth and knowledge affect our perception of reality and of the people we can trust. Ideas come in every colour and shape: modern and conventional, rightwing and leftwing, moderate and extremist, secular and ecclesiastical, rural and urban, upper class and lower class. So the tapestry of conventions one might encounter is immense. This leads to a diversity of mental prejudices and psychological dispositions. People act upon their beliefs, and they also act upon their interests. This is why the chances of disagreement are endless, which is all too obvious in political life. Diverse loyalties can lead to endless disputes, but this doesn't need to be the case. Diverse loyalties can be allowed to express themselves under the same banner. And they can converge on the same ground. Various sections of society can interact with one another face-to-face, thus offering balance and width rather than hurt and grievance. Loyalties don't have to culminate in a crude struggle for power. It is only in cases where authorities fail to maintain the balance between loyalties that disruption develops into revolution or civil strife. Lebanon is a classic case of mixed loyalties. Once upon a time, Lebanon's politics mirrored its sectarian make-up. Shias were pro-Iranian, Maronites pro-West, Sunnis pro-Arab, and Druze figured it out on the fly. Today, political loyalties meet across conventional alliances. The 8 March coalition brings together Hizbullah, Amal, Maronites, Catholics, Orthodox, the Islamic Group, small Sunni parties, Druze loyal to Talal Arsalan, and various pro-Syrian parties. Then you get the 14 May coalition, which attracts the bulk of the Sunni community, a section of the Maronites and Druze loyal to Walid Jumblatt. What we have here is an intricate tapestry involving three distinct brands of loyalty. The first is clan loyalty, where the chief holds sway over his community. In this category one can identify political leaders, such as Hassan Nasrallah, Saad Al-Hariri, Nabih Berri, Walid Jumblatt, Michel Aoun, and Samir Geagea, as well as chief clerics such as the mufti of Lebanon, the chief Shia mullah, and the Maronite patriarch. The second brand of loyalty involves narrow interests, people who are betting on the winning horse, and those who are disillusioned with the government. The third style of loyalty is focussed on ideology, and it cuts the country down at the centre between pro- Western and anti-Western forces. Although much is at stake, the intricacy of loyalties -- especially the way they surpass conventional boundaries -- has saved the country from civil war. But there is no guarantee that the standoff cannot turn into something ugly. The lack of a solution, the tenacity of the contenders, and the paucity of foreign mediation may turn the conflict into one of "values" rather than "ideology". Should this happen, old grievances may resurface and the lines of battle may become sectarian. And this is the last thing one should wish on any country. * The writer is head of the Cairo-based Middle East Research and Studies Centre.
