After two years of vehemently opposing it, former Prime Minister
Saad Hariri yesterday did an about face endorsing the candidature of Michel
Aoun for the Presidency of Lebanon. In his endorsement speech, Hariri stated
that his choice represented a “risky political move for himself”, which he was
willing to take as a “sacrifice for the sake of the country”. Three questions
beg themselves: What choices did Hariri have? Why did he make his choice? And what
does it all say about him?
The first question is what choices did Hariri have? In his
own coalition, he had several, among whom were candidates such as Harb and Gemayel—the
first a prominent lawyer and politician, the latter a former President. A third
and more extreme choice was of course Samir Gaegae, the head of the Phalange party.
Having been jailed for many years, Gaegae remains a polarizing figure, who
garners the admiration of few and the disdain of many. Of the three, Hariri
chose Gaegae as his first Presidential candidate. The most salient explanation,
at the time, was that it was his attempt to counter the endorsement for the presidency of another polarizing figure, Aoun, by Hezbollah.
Not surprisingly, Gaegae’s endorsement didn’t pan out; and Hariri
felt compelled to find another candidate. To the chagrin of Gaegae, in place of
finding a more suitable candidate within the coalition, Hariri decided to endorse one of the opposing camp’s candidates, Suleyman Franjiyyeh who happens to be one
of Gaegae’s most bitter enemies (And whose family it is said were ordered to be
killed by Gaegae during the civil war!). The fact that Franjiyyeh barely has a
high school degree, did not seem to have deterred Hariri from making his choice.
In his mind, in no way did it represent a depreciation of the highest office in
the land. The explanation at the time was that Hariri was attempting to split the
opposing camp by endorsing one of their two candidates. They did not budge, and
Franjiyyeh’s candidature eventually fared as well as that of its predecessor.
Feeling compelled yet again to search for a third candidate, Hariri once more overlooked his own coalition members. This time, however, he decided what would
have been unthinkable to him and his coalition only a few days earlier: He
endorsed Aoun. In his endorsement, Hariri justified it by stating that all his
previous candidates had not had “luck on their side” and that the final choice had
to fall on Aoun. Putting “luck” aside for a moment, the fact that the candidate
is an octogenarian, highly polarizing, and an ally of his political enemies did
little to phase Hariri. In his mind, there was no other choice. But what
about Harb and Gemayel? What about centrists and highly qualified alternatives-men like Helou, Obeid,
Baroud, and Domianos? For some reason, to Hariri, they did not seem to exist; or
they were deemed unworthy of the highest office.
Why did Hariri make these seemingly erratic choices? In his
announcement, Hariri mentioned the need to “sacrifice for the sake of the
nation”. But what exactly was Hariri sacrificing; and why didn’t he have the
foresight to realize the importance of this sacrifice two years earlier and not
waste the nation’s time and energy with his opposition to Aoun’s candidature? Some
say it is due to new developments in the Syrian conflict; and that in
nominating Aoun, Hariri was trying to salvage something … anything. If that
were the case, one must pause and ask what then did Hariri ask for in exchange
for Aoun’s endorsement? With some claiming that it was an implicit deal for him
to return as Prime Minister, they believe the only sacrifice he was making was that if his
own coalition and all that it stands for, in exchange for his own interests. Is it any
wonder then that so soon after the endorsement, several of his own party and coalition’s
senior members came out speaking against the endorsement?
Many more questions than answers are being raised as a
result of Saad Hariri’s precipitous announcement. Regardless, one final key question
to ask is what does all this say about Hariri himself. After all, his choices have
been undeniably erratic with little if regard to any decorum for the highest
office in the land. Hariri seems to have
as weak a hold on core beliefs as he does loyalty to his own coalition and
constituency, let alone strategic rectitude and discipline required to uphold
them. If that were the case, one last question indelibly begs itself: Is Saad Hariri
himself qualified or worthy to ever again be the Prime Minister of Lebanon?
