The process and outcome of the Metn elections left many objective observers who are wedded to democratic practices and keen on maintaining internal stability with mixed feelings.

On the one hand, most Lebanese were relieved that what could have turned into “a serious national crisis,” as MP Nassib Lahoud warned, was averted. Had the state, represented by the Interior Minister ­ the brother of candidate Myrna Murr, allowed its emotions to control the outcome of the elections and declared Myrna Murr the winner, Nassib Lahoud’s warning might have become an understatement.

Watching TV scenes of thousands of zealous, over-charged, disgruntled young men and women surrounding the Serail in Jdeidet al-Metn and chanting radical slogans was unnerving. There was great concern that if the results of the ballot count were falsified, the demonstrators and their comrades, who already feel disenfranchised and misrepresented, would take to the streets. Now that “victory” was achieved after more than 10 years of frustration and perceived oppression, taking it away from them after they had won it fair and square would inflame their emotions and turn them into raging bulls. It would be easy to predict their initial reaction but it is frightening to imagine where it could lead. Destabilization in its ugliest forms seemed in the cards.

In the end, the Interior Minister “let (his) conscience be the judge” and ­ more or less ­ released the true results “putting (his) sympathy (for his sister) aside, shouldering national responsibility … so as to diffuse tension in the country, relieve people and give right to their owners,” as he put it. Judging by his demeanor, that was not an easy task. In fact, he couldn’t bring himself to declare his uncle, his sister’s rival, the winner. He merely recited the ballot count with obvious unease.
However, the true winner in this process was democracy itself. The majority’s choice won and state institutions bowed to its wishes. Credit goes to the president, the speaker of the Parliament, and to the prime minister who were all wise enough to realize the magnitude of the evolving situation, the potential risk to internal stability, and the potential damage to Lebanon’s cherished reputation as the only democracy in the region.

By respecting the constitution, President Lahoud showed considerable far sightedness. He was surely aware that a victory for Gabriel Murr would be perceived by some as a personal defeat for the president, who has multiple political and family ties to his opponent. He was certainly mindful of the fact that Gabriel Murr’s supporters were effectively voting against the status quo over which he presides and against regional ties he supports. Yet he respected the ballot box results and pressed for the truth, however painful it is, to finally come out, albeit two days late.
The speaker and the prime minister were steadfast in their quiet but effective role in averting what would have amounted to a snub for Lebanon’s democratic traditions. Although neither of them have any love lost for Myrna’s father Michel Murr or for his style of government, which one observer compared to Chicago’s former Mayor Richard Daley’s, they did not gloat at the result. While they realized that the defeat of the daughter of Michel Murr, who is a staunch supporter of distinguished relations with Syria, could be interpreted as a defeat for the pro-Syrian line to which they too belong, they worked behind the scenes to ensure that the majority’s choice would be respected. Additionally, Syria itself is reported to have played a significant role in averting the “national crisis” and protecting state institutions, despite the implications that Gabriel Murr’s victory would entail.

There was another positive aspect to the fiasco. Opposition Don Quixote leader Michel Aoun ­ who has never recognized the Taif Agreement or the legitimacy of current state institutions and whose supporters boycotted every parliamentary election in the last 10 years ­ asked his supporters to participate in the elections, effectively recognizing the amended constitution and the government. Despite great misgivings about his stands by most Lebanese, the return of a significant sector of society to active practice of citizenship is a welcome development.

However, the prevailing of democracy notwithstanding, the profile of the winner’s allies and his own sentiments are disconcerting. Although Nassib Lahoud, a generally respected and moderate parliamentarian, played a lead role in Gabriel Murr’s campaign, the bulk of support for the latter’s candidacy came from radical, isolationist, Christian groups whose role in Lebanon’s civic strife is shunned by most Lebanese.

Regrettably, the state’s unwise practices contributed a great deal to its opponents’ victory. This led to the emergence of an ad hoc alliance, which grouped opponents of yesteryear out to vent their frustration from the excesses of certain leaders and state apparatuses.

Consequently, Gabriel Murr’s election coalition included supporters of Michel Aoun along with Samir Geagea’s, who had fought bitter battles among each other that wreaked havoc on the country, shot each other mercilessly, caused the loss of many lives, brought much destruction to the nation, and delayed the end of the civil war by a few years. It also revived the political fortunes of former President Amin Gemayyel who was a political has-been until this week. A curious member of this coalition was former Communist Party secretary-general George Hawi, who had unabashedly declared that he was sorry that the killer of President-elect Bashir Gemayel, Amin’s brother, had beaten him to the act. Yet they all united under the banner of democracy and human rights!

Indeed, one doesn’t know whether to cheer at the result or worry about its implications. That democracy and truth finally prevailed is welcome. But resuscitating certain symbols of an ugly civil war is worrisome.

One can only hope that the state learns lessons from this episode. By its own unwise and often despicable practices, its double standards, and the excesses of some of its principal pillars, it is reviving and strengthening radical political groups that are bent on destroying the domestic stability we have enjoyed for nearly a decade.

By the same token, one hopes that the few level-headed leaders of this newfound coalition will prevent the radical groupings within it from slipping back to their old ways and from chasing windmills.

Adib Farha is a member of the National Audiovisual Media Council

Copyright © The Daily Star