Hezbollah

There are times when they make it so easy. The New York Times headline on the pro-Syrian rallies taking place today in Lebanon talk of how they seem to dwarf the crowds that were anti-Syrian. This is most likely true, from everything I had read, and, as stated below, it would be foolish to imagine that everyone there had been coerced.

So, then: for whom should we root? Instinctively, you go with the anti-Syrian contingency, attractive youths and passionate older folk rallying against a looting, violent foreign occupation bolstered by a cruel security apparatus. But based on numbers at a rally, you maybe start to think the bulk of Lebanese are perhaps in favor of Syria.

Numbers are tricky, but it would be a tad disingenuous to say that large rallies in favor of freedom are important but rallies against it are not. So we have to kind of ignore numbers, because as inspiring as people power is, it has to be about more than just raw numbers. After all, Yanukoyvich, the corrupt Ukrainian "winner" of the first round, also had a lot of people supporting him.

The blogger Caveman in Beirut makes this distinction between the two rallies, starting with today's official rally.

"The demonstrations are huge, almost impressively so, but they are boring. They are boring because they are not about those who are attending. They are about the windbags speaking to them, and they are about the antiquated message being forced down their throats. The opposition protests seem to focus more on the participants than on the speakers - hence, the operative phrase "people power." Hezbollah and Syria cannot bring themselves to understand "people power" because they cannot control it, and the essence of both their societies, if anything, seems to be about control. So, boredom wins over violence - at least we can be happy about that. Either way, the people lose."

Now, again, that is a little unfair to the people at the rallies, many if not most of whom probably do care about and believe in what the speakers are saying. But there is a different dynamic. When theocratic militiamen and dull representatives of a foreign dinosaur government gather, their speeches, no matter how "fiery" always resort to the same tired rhetoric, sloppy lingo, and worn-out catchphrases. There is no real spark, because they are hanging onto the past. Antiquated message indeed.

Beside, and this is a crucial point: a democracy is not a majoritarian system. It simply cannot be. A democracy is about protecting rights, and Syrian occupation is entirely antithetical to that idea. Like I said at the top: sometimes they make it easy. In order to turn this dilemma into a no-brainer, I will turn to Hezbollah's leader, Shiek Hassan Nasrallah (as quoted in the Times).
"'You are wrong in your calculations in Lebanon. Lebanon will not be divided,' Mr. Nasrallah said, aiming his words at the Bush administration. 'Lebanon is not Somalia; Lebanon is not Ukraine; Lebanon is not Georgia,' he added."

What a wonderful way to put it; with such grace does he betray his intentions! I confess to not understanding the Somalia part- perhaps a call against US intervention? But that didn't work out very well. Perhaps the Sheik was just following the Rule of Three- things always sound better in three, and he wanted to avoid mentioning interventions in Bosnia or Kosovo where the US saved Muslim societies from the forces of ethnic and religious fascism.

But Ukraine and Georgia! What he meant to say is "we won't let Lebanon become Ukraine or Georgia, despite what people in this country want!" There is conspiratorial gibberish about the US forcing those revolutions, and there is no doubt that the US pulled for a winner and worked behind the scenes (Saaklishavi and Yuschenko both have western backgrounds). That perhaps is what the Sheik wanted the crowd to hear. But that isn't what he really meant.

What he meant is that he fully intended to use whatever it takes to keep the status quo alive in Lebanon, to suppress the joyous, spontaneous, genuine and peaceful calls for its demise. These are what we saw in those former Soviet states, and what is growing in Lebanon. It is real, no matter how many problems it faces.

For that reason, one has to root passionately for their success. An argument can be made for Lebanon being a key domino in the democratization of the Middle East, or a step toward the dismantling of the brutal, obstructionist Syrian government, or any of these. And they are all good arguments, and good reasons to cheer on the Lebanese oppositionists. But let us not get caught in strategy- people demanding their rights, standing up to a calcified and corrupt system, is a great good unto itself. Standing up to self-proclaimed holy warriors is a great good.

The people are risking a lot to be there. No, Lebanon is not Georgia nor is it Ukraine. But it can become a country like those. Struggling, in difficult straits, but with hope. The fear is that democracy can lead to destabilization- and perhaps the Sheik's grim warnings about Somalia will be seen as prescient. But let us not forget who is tearing Somalia apart- warlords, radical Islamic fighters, and cruel and corrupt politicians. Though the ranks of the opposition are surely dotted with crooks and opportunists and ten-percenters, it is the pro-Syrian rallies that are being organized by kin of the Somalia vandals. This one, then, is a no-brainer. The forces of stagnation are too dumb to even lie about what they want, and for that, we have to tip our hats and thank them for sparing us the energy.