Whoever followed the Lebanese opposition's last rally on Sunday will have noticed two tones so different that they do not fit into alliances and understanding. Between the slogan started by Sheikh Naim Kassem, the deputy general secretary of Hezbollah, 'Death to America, death to Israel', and the focus on corruption and public money in the speech given by Michel Aoun, the leader of the Free National Movement, there is a yawning gap that cannot be bridged by politics and agendas. Khomeini's famous slogan does not offer Lebanon the means to change its political methods or the reforms that Aoun aspires to or pretends so; it thrusts on it the question of Being and Nothingness.

But the two parties insisted, for well-known reasons, on concerted action within the same framework. This has made each assume a character other than its own. The 'Tayyar' (Aoun’s movement), being as it is the weak partner, has carried the idea of alliances to great lengths, which we usually find only in stories, if not in fables. What policy every now and then justifies a political group allying itself, not only with Hezbollah, but with all the political forces immersed in 'Syrianism?'

Let us look at this degraded 'Lebanonism' that springs from sectarian and personal prejudices, obstinacy and hate, and which is now rushing to the point where the country might inevitably collapse. The parliamentary majority cannot be dissociated from this degradation: it had formed a quadruple alliance with Amal and Hezbollah for what were at best reasons purely related to the elections. At that time, the majority put on the mantle that was against the good side of their 'Lebanonism' â€" the good side hinted at by the March 14 Forces. If an 'understanding' between Aoun and Nasrallah gave legitimacy to actions that violate the very conditions of political existence, the quadruple alliance has marginalized the Shiites outside the two great Shiite parties, and who want a wider representation for their sect. Apart from initiatives that are more mythical than serious, the Shiites were not being addressed in a coherent way by the March 14 Forces. The Alliance also sent out a message to the Christians to the effect that their Sunni and Druze allies are afraid of them, notwithstanding the March 14 meeting that was supposed to overcome these fears. Needless to say, the degenerate 'Lebanonism' here nourished the degenerate 'Lebanonism' there, so that the quadruple alliance was the launching pad for the rise of Michel Aoun, the icon of Christian fears par excellence.

With this collective habit, it has become impossible to develop an unequivocally distinct political vision in regard of 'what is taken for granted'. Corresponding to the provocations of the oppositionists as they carry out their strike, some voices are describing the Shiites as being heretics! And while there is the ridiculous talk about the Resistance, there is no radical criticism of the principle itself, not only with regard to how it is conducted. And while sectarian differences are rife, no one has mentioned the word 'secularism' with all the policies and alliances it entails.

Of course, wiseacres will appear to say this is not the time to talk about the military neutrality or secularism. But the whole country now is at the crossroads: either crucial words are said at crucial times, or we die with silent wisdom!

In reality, the mantle, that was thought on March 14 would begin to take the country to richer and wider uplands, is today choking good 'Lebanonism'. At this stage of the disaster, the country will not be saved by the distribution of responsibilities. We are all going downhill at record speed, but there is still talk of 'responsibilities'. This is another testimony to the Lebanese impotence in regard to what national politics demand. And in this, Lebanon is just another Arab case.