Mohammad Chatah's message to Nassib Lahoud - Ayman Mhanna - Now Lebanon
A member of the Democratic Renewal Movement's executive committee recounts a conversation with Mohammad Chatah.
In October 2011, I visited my friend Omar, Mohammad Chatah’s son, in their house on Bliss Street. Mohammad welcomed me in his characteristically friendly manner and asked me, “How is Nassib doing?” Nassib Lahoud, the president of the Democratic Renewal Movement who passed away in February 2012, had at the time recently returned from France, where he had been undergoing medical treatment. After a short chat about current affairs, Chatah explained the crisis in Lebanon in terms I will never forget: “Populism is a real danger for Lebanese in general and Christians in particular. I am afraid that the minority-minded behavior of the Christians and the appeal of populist ideas among Christians will last beyond the current leadership of the largest Christian bloc in Parliament. We must combat populism and the exploitation of Christians’ fears. We must identify the reasons why demagogical leaders manipulate their supporters’ instincts and tackle them.”
I wanted to understand the link between his question on Nassib Lahoud’s health and his comment on the growing populism among Lebanon’s Christians. “There are two projects that Nassib Lahoud is among the very few who have the legitimacy and credibility to lead,” Chatah replied. “They address two issues that populists like to wave: abolishing the confessional system and combating corruption.”
Chatah was first and foremost a pragmatist. Abolishing confessionalism in Lebanon was not a realistic option for the time being. Communities have legitimate fears that must be acknowledged. Chatah believed that the lack of credible and sustainable guarantees for communities’ rights pushed citizens to care about the confession of director-generals, officers, and even second or third level civil servants; as if Orthodox Armenians were better protected if the director-general of the Ministry of Environment was Armenian Orthodox himself, or if the future of the Greek Catholics depended on the confession of the President of the Economic and Social Council. The hyper-confessionalisation of every state institution prevents accountability and paralyses the functioning of the state. Chatah supported the creation of a senate, representing confessions, as outlined in the electoral law promoted by the Orthodox Gathering. Under this system, the Senate would have extended powers over matters that can affect communities’ rights and fundamental liberties. Once provided with credible senatorial protection, he believed that religious minorities would become less attached to specific posts in the public administration. The lower chamber of parliament – also liberated from confessional quotas – would then focus on legislating about development, infrastructure, and public policies, without any sectarian hijacking of these issues, in his view.
Chatah wanted to me to convey this idea to Nassib Lahoud so that they could work on the technical, legal, and constitutional steps towards a credible and ambitious reform project. Lahoud, according to Chatah, had the legitimacy to carry this proposal. Lahoud did not need to prove his Christian credentials nor his secular and progressive vision, as demonstrated by both his private life and political action through the Democratic Renewal Movement.
Corruption was also a topic used by Christian populists against their opponents of the moment and ignored when it comes to their allies. Chatah wanted to simultaneously combat the corruption of the Lebanese political class and selective, expedient accusations of corruption for political purposes. Through his probity, recognized by his opponents and supporters alike, Nassib Lahoud had the credibility to propose the lifting of banking secrecy on all public officials’ bank accounts. The measure would affect elected and appointed officials (and their close relatives) allowing access to their financial transactions for a predetermined period that spanned several years before they took office to a number of years after their tenures. In parallel, investigative powers of judicial authorities would be increased and financial control mechanisms strengthened. Chatah was aware that such a project was difficult to implement in Lebanon. Yet, he was convinced that the project must be put on the table so that all politicians would be forced to take a stand, forcing those who have not stopped accusing others of corruption to “walk the walk.”
Mohammad Chatah did not fear addressing the core problems that have prevented the establishment of a strong, democratic and sovereign Lebanon; whether these problems resided in Tehran, Beirut, or in the Lebanese sectarian subconscious.
Unfortunately, Nassib Lahoud passed away before reading Mohammad Chatah’s letters and never managed to implement his recommendations.
Unfortunately too, Mohammad Chatah was killed before knowing whether Hassan Rouhani read and understood his letter.
These letters are today in the hands of the Lebanese youth that Mohammad Chatah believed in until the last moment of his life. We cannot bring Mohammad Chatah back, but we can keep his vision alive.
An Arabic version of this article was published in Al-Mustaqbal on January 3, 2014.