After being released from the Defense Ministry prison in Lebanon, Lebanese Forces leader Dr. Samir Geagea was able to retrieve what he had lost over 11 years of detention. He went further, as he met with representatives of most Lebanese groups, who came to congratulate him. This was not possible for him when he was “free” and acting as a limited party za’im (leader); after he exited prison he secured a larger za’ama (status as leader).

From being made completely absent while in prison, above and below ground, to occupying local and satellite television stations. From a long trial that saw him serve life sentences reduced from the death penalty, to celebrations that his partisans and former rivals saw as a “national day,” reviving the spirit of the Independence Intifada of 14 March. In the Arab world, this happens only in Lebanon, and it truly happened. The released Geagea was keen to tell everyone that he had not changed but had learned much from his personal trial, but he didn’t go as far as to thank his jailers. During Geagea’s televised address, behind him was a photo of the Lebanese president, since he was speaking at a reception room at Beirut Airport, which has now been officially named The Martyr Rafiq al-Hariri International Airport.

Everyone who shook Geagea’s hand said that his release boosted the climate of “national reconciliation,” which they had earlier said became possible after a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, just like General Michel Aoun’s return. However, what also became possible was going beyond judicial verdicts, as if the State that imprisoned or exiled them was not the State that they returned consideration for. The former State had been seized and the current State sprung from Freedom Square, even if some of the representatives are following up their roles and exchanging stances depending on the changes underway.

The problem with a “reconciliation” such as this, like the problem of the 14 March Intifada, is that it requires politicians who can rise to the level of popular spirit, which clearly showed society’s will to coexist. If society proved anything, it proved its rebellion against the regime that had been imposed on it. It was strange that the ruling institution, both civil and military, has not yet managed to put the meaning of 14 March into a national program. No one dreams that disputes, differences, and divisions will disappear, or that sectarian mobilization will suddenly become absent. However, the lofty values forcefully expressed by the people were not a lie, a superstition or a mere ad hoc reaction. Interest is possible but it requires considerable work, by all, because all paid the price of the previous experiment, which cost 30 years of the life of the country and people.

Certainly the greatest price of this “reconciliation” was the assassination of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, who Lebanese, whether rivals or supporters, felt to be a statesman with a vision and plan that went beyond the reality imposed by the “mistakes” of the Syrian role. The martyred prime minister was the third, following Riad Solh and Omar Karami, to be assassinated under differing circumstances but in the context of preserving and safeguarding the Lebanese State. They weren’t the only ones to have this mission, as the circumstances and reasons that cost the martyred President Rene Mouawad his life in the first weeks of the implementation of the Taef Accord might be similar. The slogan for all in the new State of today is not to repeat or permit what has happened. Let the “reconciliation” be based on difference without fighting.

There are three interesting points in the new government’s ministerial policy statement: rebuilding security agencies, the independence of the judiciary, and considering the resistance a Lebanese matter. The security institution is what creates the regime’s immunity (based on interest and concord) or causes it to become unbalanced if this institution becomes penetrated from the outside. An independent judiciary creates justice in a pluralistic society. The resistance embodied national dignity, liberated land, deterred the Israelis. It is no one’s interest for it to become cut down to size and become a source of national division.

Hezbollah didn’t take part in the vote on Geagea’s pardon and wasn’t there for his release, but didn’t obstruct things either, just like Christian parties didn’t obstruct the naming of a Hezbollah leader as a minister. These are phenomena of young “reconciliation” that should be deepened and made effective. Geagea’s address wasn’t distant from the spirit of the ministerial statement, which he hadn’t read. Thus, there is a qualitative jump in the mentality of those dealing with politics and government, even if some remain hesitant, as is betting on the people organizing bombings here and then.