What no judiciary means to Lebanon

Disturbing scenes have been surfacing on TV with protesting parents of the victims of the Aug 4, 2020 Beirut explosion, being roughed up by Lebanese police and security agencies. This was coupled by the Lebanese minister of justice himself accusing the parents of the victims as being agents receiving money in order to protest against the lack of truth and justice in the killing of their own families!? All the while, former ministers and officials who have been subpoenaed to appear in front of the investigating magistrate have flouted the law and refused to appear, with the magistrate himself now being condemned as ineffective. Efforts appear well underway to replace him.

At first view, this may appear to be the Lebanese ruling regime simply trying to save its own from prosecution. “It’s just a couple of ministers. It’s just politics, what’s the big deal?” they ask. But is it really? Or is what’s at stake much larger, like ripping the fabric of the democratic nation of Lebanon and risking its entire existence?

Let us start with the structure of modern democracies. As we have grown to know them, they typically  have three key elements to them. The people themselves, who are the source of all power. Then we have those they elect to represent them to create laws on their behalf in a chamber of deputies or parliament. And then there is the elected executives tasked with implementing these laws in a cabinet. These three elements while necessary, are insufficient because in themselves they do not answer the question of what would happen when differences arise within society, or between society and the elected bodies of government? For that, there is a fourth critical element meant to pull the fabric all together: The judiciary. Its job is to make sure it adjudicates rights when conflicts emerge. The judiciary makes its rulings based on the law of the land applying it equally to all affected citizens or parties. In so doing, the judiciary essentially allows society to feel that come what may, fairness and justice will prevail hence keeping the democracy intact.

The question that begs itself is what happens when this judicial “fabric” rips or ceases to be? In some cases, people will feel inclined to take the law into their own hands (resulting in anarchy or chaos). In other cases, leaders or regimes no longer have any checks over their power, doing away with any form of legal accountability, hence becoming an autocracy. This means the powers will be able to do as they please to the people, which includes usurping their rights, stealing their hard-earned savings, and even taking away their lives when it suits them. This sounds hauntingly similar to what is currently transpiring in Lebanon. 

When such seismic change occurs, it ceases to be an isolated case relating to this judge or that procedure. It becomes systemic; and its implications reverberate at all levels, in all sectors of society, and even internationally. No matter how much the ruling regime tries to paint over it, the rip in the fabric, is there for everyone to see, and react to. As an example, if some ministers refuse to appear in front of a magistrate in contempt of court orders, and they go unpunished for a perpetrated crime, what stops a bereaved citizen of taking the law into their own hands and imposing injury on such a minister or any other citizen? Would they be in their right to do so or not? Could they be held accountable, while the minister responsible for the original crime is rejecting to appear in front of justice? Similarly, if a governing regime violates its own people and their rights, can they legitimately have claims against third parties (local or international) who may do the same?

In the case of the explosion of Beirut, many sectors were affected, not least of which the insurance sector, the financial sector, the security sector, the transportation sector, the agricultural sector, among many others. If such a massive calamity were to go unresolved, how will the liabilities of such sectors be resolved? Who will assume responsibility for the lives lost? Will affected asset owners be compensated appropriately by insurance companies, or will their unjustified failure to pay be held also in contempt of the court? What about the destruction of the business livelihood and employment? And what of any economic contracts that may have been broken due to the destruction of the ports? 

Beirut’s calamity being among the largest non-nuclear explosions in the history of mankind occurred at such massive dimensions that it simply cannot be swept under a rug as if nothing has occurred. Aside from the lives lost, and the bodily injuries incurred, there are tens of billions of Dollars at stake and awaiting judicial adjudication. If Lebanon’s judiciary is not allowed to proceed unhindered, it will send the strongest of signals to all the Lebanese, the Lebanese expats, as well as the international community that Lebanon has completely lost its rule of law and as such is a failed democratic state. What then? Would anyone be willing to enter into any form of a contract with a Lebanese firm or the Lebanese government? And if they aren’t willing to, then where does it leave the nation as a whole and its ability to claw itself back from the abyss?

At a time when the Lebanese people have lost their livelihood, their savings, and their economy, they are desperately trying to grasp for any last straw of hope. Unfortunately, what the Lebanese ruling regime is doing by undermining the judiciary is essentially ripping among the nation’s last remaining fabric lines that could knit a viable state; and instead is driving Lebanon heads-on into a failed status. Bottom line, if there is no judiciary, there can really be no Lebanon.