Policies not Politics- What The Lebanese People Really Want to Hear

In a recent debate on Lebanese television, the host had a representative from the Change Movement (Change) facing off with one from the regime. The incumbent representative responded most questions with answers that hid behind political jargon and excuses, such as “the broken political system has not allowed us”, “there is too much corruption”, or “we are actually reformists and are on the side of change”. The Change representative tried to argue using a little of political history and a somewhat light dose of policy. It quickly became clear the strengths and weaknesses of each of their positions.

On the one hand, the regime representative found it hard to defend their record; and under current circumstances, it is not hard to see why. Lebanon’s multiple disasters in the past handful of years speak for themselves: An economic calamity that has seen the economic output fall by more than 50% and the currency by more than 90%, was soon followed by a financial collapse, bankrupting the entire banking sector with depositors unable to withdraw their funds. This in turn caused a social deterioration with more than 80% of the population falling into poverty, and hundreds of thousands migrating to safer shores. As if that were not enough, a nuclear sized explosion destroyed a third of the capital city Beirut, killing hundreds and destroying tens of thousands of homes—the crime has so far gone unpunished without a single regime leader held responsible. With such an indefensible record, the tactics being used by the regime seem to focus on politicizing any debate and clobbering audiences with wild evasions of any sort of policy, let alone record.

On the other hand, in the above-mentioned discussion, the Change representative’s debate strategy at times seemed reticent and at others too polite, delving unnecessarily into irrelevant political science and ideology (left versus right), while not having clear and concise messaging to differentiate positions or establish audience trust. At no time did the Change’s representative attack the incumbent on the regime’s record; and very little was given in the way of policy. Worse yet, the representative fell into the trap of a cynical political discussion against an opponent who seemed vastly more versed and experienced at it.

In the end, the entire debate seemed unnecessary or relevant, particularly for the elections. If anything, it probably became confusing to the audience, who may be forgiven for drawing equally negative conclusions about both sides. In this sense, the winner of the debate would have to be seen as the incumbent regime, not for winning the debate, but rather for not losing it, having managed to drag the Change’s representative down into an opaque and muddy swamp.

An important lesson can be drawn here: If Change is to have any breakthrough results in the elections, it has to come more prepared to counter the regime’s primarily political strategy. To do that, it needs to deploy debate tactics that don’t cheaply give away two very important tactical advantages, while simultaneously making sure to circumvent at all costs a third, which is to the advantage of the regime. What are these three tactics that could make up a winning election for Change?

The first tactic is to stay on message by attacking the regime for its failed record. There is no policy maker on this earth capable of defending the incumbent regime’s disastrous state of affairs, corruption, and incompetence. Common political excuses to such a record are falling flat on voters who are struggling and need to hear solutions not excuses. Failed policies hidden behind political jargon don’t feed mouths, and Change needs to highlight this. This tactic should be considered as “low hanging fruit”, and all that is needed is preparation to have specific talking points and discipline to stay on message.

The second tactic has to be to present a program and a plan that are clear, concise, consistent, and achievable. There is no need to over promise or exaggerate. Everyone with reasonable knowledge knows that Lebanon’s economic and social problems cannot be resolved overnight. Sticking to policies that focus on the most essential and the most doable should be enough to establish trust with the voters. Striking a balance between being candid and being optimistic will sway voters from incumbents who have been promising for decades while achieving nothing.

The third tactic is to avoid engaging on a battleground that is clearly to the advantage of the regime—and that is Lebanese politics. Considering that the country has been under the rule of the same incumbent clique for well over 30 years, it is quite implausible for anyone to expect new candidates to be able to beat these entrenched politicians at their tried and tested game—that of sectarian politics. Rather, the tactic here should be to evade any such engagement, refocusing on the first two tactics, meaning questioning the record and presenting alternative policies. Falling into a trap of endless circular political debate is pointless, laden with risks, and presents no benefits for the Change movement.

The combined strategy can therefore be thought of “Attack the policy record”, “Present achievable policies”, and “Avoid murky politics”. Unfortunately, after listening to the debate earlier this week, Change failed on all the three tactics: First, it did not attack the regime enough on its record, second it did not present clear or concise policy alternatives, and third it fell into the trap of political mud slinging against a regime that has been at it for 30 or more years. The net result is one of a lost debate, or in the very least one that was not won.

As parliamentary election season heats up, the Change candidates will have to up their game quickly and deploy a winning strategy through smarter tactics that make voters want to support them. For that to happen, the voter’s bottom line is this: They want to hear achievable policies not murky politics. The sooner Change realizes this and can show the people that it does through clear debate, the sooner will it be given their vote of confidence.