Lebanon has a decidedly distasteful tendency to be one of those forlorn places wherein every issue has to provoke a brawl, even when it appears to have been settled by legislation and when the rules in question are manifestly in the interest of the entire nation. The mounting upheaval over the diesel ban is the latest example of this unfortunate trait and, like its predecessors, it stems from a widespread disrespect for the law in general ­ even on the part of those who claim to support this law in particular.

June 15 is the deadline by which, officially, taxis that run on diesel will no longer be allowed to operate, and mini-buses are scheduled to fall under the same restrictions as of July 15. These dates are themselves the result of lengthy extensions granted by the state, so the companies and drivers in question have no excuse if they have failed to adequately prepare for the new regulations. And still they threaten to disrupt traffic ­ and so to imperil our fragile economy ­ in a bid to prevent the implementation of the law.

Before anyone asks with exasperation why so many drivers are willing to defy the will of the people as translated into legislation by the Parliament, however, one should review the manner in which far too many opinion-shapers approach this and other issues.

For one thing, from the moment the national legislature approved the law in question, various politicians have been emitting mixed signals on whether it will be implemented or simply left to rot like hundreds of others. Wittingly or not, some of the country’s most influential leaders allowed uncertainty to reign and disgruntled drivers to hope that they might be able to wiggle out from under the law, prompting them to refrain from replacing their antiquated, poison-spewing engines. It is only natural, therefore, that in the face of increasing evidence that the state is serious this time, they feel betrayed but still believe that if they just cause enough trouble, they might still get their way.

There have also been reports that the drivers’ fury is being fueled by meddling security agencies, a scenario that has been denied by the Defense Ministry but which would be entirely in keeping with how certain elements have tried to undermine the political leadership in the not-so-distant past. It is no secret that some people have taken it upon themselves to ignore their responsibility to ensure national stability by doing precisely the opposite in order to undermine certain politicians. One cannot be sure that it is happening this time, but only a visiting alien from another planet could realistically claim to be surprised if it were.

The most damaging habit that the Lebanese polity has on this and other issues, though, remains an almost universal penchant for reflexive nods to symbols of personal power, a proclivity that necessarily erodes institutions even before they encounter their first test on any given matter. This time the defect has taken the form of an informal coalition (including newspapers, ministers, MPs, etc.) whose primary message is that the ban will go through because it has the support of Emile Lahoud, Nabih Berri, and Rafik Hariri.

With all due respect to the president, the speaker and the prime minister, this line of reasoning is foolish because it imparts to their whims a false superiority over the considered judgment of Parliament. If one assumes that one of these three men could have single-handedly trumped the diesel ban, what does that say about the rule of law and so about the right of the Lebanese to be governed not by individuals but by the sacred principles of democracy and republicanism?

It does not help to opine that this or any other law will be implemented because of support from this or that heavyweight. Instead, in the instance of this particular law, we should be hearing that it must be implemented because diesel fumes are choking our children and driving away tourists; and in general we ought not to hear a word about whether a law will be implemented or not because that is what laws are for: They are passed, and then they are enforced ­ on everyone.

Both those who appear in political headlines and those who write them have a responsibility to help set the tone of debate and to encourage respect for genuine authority rather than the ersatz variety bestowed on the basis of prestige. Instead, by failing to do so on this issue and so many others, a great many influential parties have actively helped to pervert the course of justice by blurring the source from which legitimacy is derived: the law. Lahoud promised that no one would be above the law during his mandate, a sentiment by which all have a duty to abide. No amount of medals, money or mastery entitles anyone to either ignore or derail that which has been adopted by the elected representatives of the people.

Copyright © The Daily Star