the human province

I haven't had much to say in this space about Lebanese presidential politics -- mostly because I haven't had much to say about the subject, full stop. A recent interaction with a well-placed Aounist, however, has made me question some of what I think about the situation. Up till now, the only interaction I've had with Aounists, like with most other political parties here, has been with the rank and file, the man on the street who has no more inside information than I do. And the orange man on the street seems pretty practical. While he really wants Aoun to be the president, wishful thinking aside, he doesn't really believe that it's possible any more. He'd be content with a compromise candidate along the lines of General Michel Sulaiman. 

Recently, though, I had a discussion with someone higher up in the hierarchy, someone who had inside information. Although this person didn't give me many specifics, he did stress that Aoun would be president. I asked him if he meant that Aoun should be president or that Aoun would actually be president. He replied, "both." Then I asked if I should consider that remark to be from him personally or him as a party member. Again the answer was "both."

There are three possibilities here. First, it's possible that there is information to which I'm not privy, information which will assure an Aoun victory and prove my general sense of Lebanese politics to be wrong. I don't think this is the case, but that's partially why my general sense of Lebanese politics is as it is. Second, it's possible that I wasn't getting a straight answer and that this person was just giving me the party line. This seems logical and likely, but judging from the intensity and earnestness of his discourse, I don't think it's the case. Finally, I think it's most likely that this person was so personally and emotionally invested in the campaign that he couldn't really see straight anymore. This seems to be a common symptom of junior partisans who have neither the clear sighted detraction of the man on the street nor the cynical wisdom of the senior apparatchik.

In any case, not only did this person tell me that Aoun would definitely be president, but he also said that the Aounists would not accept anything less. I have the sneaking suspicion that when all is said and done, and the presidential deals have been done in smokey back rooms in Paris, Washington and Damascus, the orange upper echelons and the rank and file will be unsurprised, leaving the more zealous junior party members with inside information completely disillusioned.

According to an-Nahar, Michel Suleiman, commander of the Lebanese Army, has said that if the Lebanese parliament failed to elect a president by November 24 (the date when Lahoud's mandate expires), resulting in the forming of two rival governments, he would resign:

Lebanese army commander Gen. Michel Suleiman warned that he would resign if two competing governments emerged as a result of a presidential vacancy.

Suleiman said he would submit his resignation on Nov. 24, the day the term of President Emile Lahoud expires, if rival legislators failed to elect a new head of state.

The army commander said he would not tolerate a political divide that would threaten Lebanon's unity and the military institution.

"If they create two governments, I will personally hand in my resignation to each of the two governments and I will go home," Suleiman was quoted as telling ambassadors as well as political and spiritual leaders.

It's hard to say if this is a genuine effort to pressure both sides to compromise or a genuine effort to pressure both sides to choose Suleiman as president, but my initial response is that both sides need to know that Lebanon will not tolerate another formation of rival governments. A similar split marked the end of the civil war last time but would probably mark the beginning of a new civil war this time.

I haven't had much to say in this space about Lebanese presidential politics -- mostly because I haven't had much to say about the subject, full stop. A recent interaction with a well-placed Aounist, however, has made me question some of what I think about the situation. Up till now, the only interaction I've had with Aounists, like with most other political parties here, has been with the rank and file, the man on the street who has no more inside information than I do. And the orange man on the street seems pretty practical. While he really wants Aoun to be the president, wishful thinking aside, he doesn't really believe that it's possible any more. He'd be content with a compromise candidate along the lines of General Michel Sulaiman. 

Recently, though, I had a discussion with someone higher up in the hierarchy, someone who had inside information. Although this person didn't give me many specifics, he did stress that Aoun would be president. I asked him if he meant that Aoun should be president or that Aoun would actually be president. He replied, "both." Then I asked if I should consider that remark to be from him personally or him as a party member. Again the answer was "both."

There are three possibilities here. First, it's possible that there is information to which I'm not privy, information which will assure an Aoun victory and prove my general sense of Lebanese politics to be wrong. I don't think this is the case, but that's partially why my general sense of Lebanese politics is as it is. Second, it's possible that I wasn't getting a straight answer and that this person was just giving me the party line. This seems logical and likely, but judging from the intensity and earnestness of his discourse, I don't think it's the case. Finally, I think it's most likely that this person was so personally and emotionally invested in the campaign that he couldn't really see straight anymore. This seems to be a common symptom of junior partisans who have neither the clear sighted detraction of the man on the street nor the cynical wisdom of the senior apparatchik.

In any case, not only did this person tell me that Aoun would definitely be president, but he also said that the Aounists would not accept anything less. I have the sneaking suspicion that when all is said and done, and the presidential deals have been done in smokey back rooms in Paris, Washington and Damascus, the orange upper echelons and the rank and file will be unsurprised, leaving the more zealous junior party members with inside information completely disillusioned.

According to an-Nahar, Michel Suleiman, commander of the Lebanese Army, has said that if the Lebanese parliament failed to elect a president by November 24 (the date when Lahoud's mandate expires), resulting in the forming of two rival governments, he would resign:

Lebanese army commander Gen. Michel Suleiman warned that he would resign if two competing governments emerged as a result of a presidential vacancy.

Suleiman said he would submit his resignation on Nov. 24, the day the term of President Emile Lahoud expires, if rival legislators failed to elect a new head of state.

The army commander said he would not tolerate a political divide that would threaten Lebanon's unity and the military institution.

"If they create two governments, I will personally hand in my resignation to each of the two governments and I will go home," Suleiman was quoted as telling ambassadors as well as political and spiritual leaders.

It's hard to say if this is a genuine effort to pressure both sides to compromise or a genuine effort to pressure both sides to choose Suleiman as president, but my initial response is that both sides need to know that Lebanon will not tolerate another formation of rival governments. A similar split marked the end of the civil war last time but would probably mark the beginning of a new civil war this time.

I haven't had much to say in this space about Lebanese presidential politics -- mostly because I haven't had much to say about the subject, full stop. A recent interaction with a well-placed Aounist, however, has made me question some of what I think about the situation. Up till now, the only interaction I've had with Aounists, like with most other political parties here, has been with the rank and file, the man on the street who has no more inside information than I do. And the orange man on the street seems pretty practical. While he really wants Aoun to be the president, wishful thinking aside, he doesn't really believe that it's possible any more. He'd be content with a compromise candidate along the lines of General Michel Sulaiman. 

Recently, though, I had a discussion with someone higher up in the hierarchy, someone who had inside information. Although this person didn't give me many specifics, he did stress that Aoun would be president. I asked him if he meant that Aoun should be president or that Aoun would actually be president. He replied, "both." Then I asked if I should consider that remark to be from him personally or him as a party member. Again the answer was "both."

There are three possibilities here. First, it's possible that there is information to which I'm not privy, information which will assure an Aoun victory and prove my general sense of Lebanese politics to be wrong. I don't think this is the case, but that's partially why my general sense of Lebanese politics is as it is. Second, it's possible that I wasn't getting a straight answer and that this person was just giving me the party line. This seems logical and likely, but judging from the intensity and earnestness of his discourse, I don't think it's the case. Finally, I think it's most likely that this person was so personally and emotionally invested in the campaign that he couldn't really see straight anymore. This seems to be a common symptom of junior partisans who have neither the clear sighted detraction of the man on the street nor the cynical wisdom of the senior apparatchik.

In any case, not only did this person tell me that Aoun would definitely be president, but he also said that the Aounists would not accept anything less. I have the sneaking suspicion that when all is said and done, and the presidential deals have been done in smokey back rooms in Paris, Washington and Damascus, the orange upper echelons and the rank and file will be unsurprised, leaving the more zealous junior party members with inside information completely disillusioned.

According to an-Nahar, Michel Suleiman, commander of the Lebanese Army, has said that if the Lebanese parliament failed to elect a president by November 24 (the date when Lahoud's mandate expires), resulting in the forming of two rival governments, he would resign:

Lebanese army commander Gen. Michel Suleiman warned that he would resign if two competing governments emerged as a result of a presidential vacancy.

Suleiman said he would submit his resignation on Nov. 24, the day the term of President Emile Lahoud expires, if rival legislators failed to elect a new head of state.

The army commander said he would not tolerate a political divide that would threaten Lebanon's unity and the military institution.

"If they create two governments, I will personally hand in my resignation to each of the two governments and I will go home," Suleiman was quoted as telling ambassadors as well as political and spiritual leaders.

It's hard to say if this is a genuine effort to pressure both sides to compromise or a genuine effort to pressure both sides to choose Suleiman as president, but my initial response is that both sides need to know that Lebanon will not tolerate another formation of rival governments. A similar split marked the end of the civil war last time but would probably mark the beginning of a new civil war this time.

I haven't had much to say in this space about Lebanese presidential politics -- mostly because I haven't had much to say about the subject, full stop. A recent interaction with a well-placed Aounist, however, has made me question some of what I think about the situation. Up till now, the only interaction I've had with Aounists, like with most other political parties here, has been with the rank and file, the man on the street who has no more inside information than I do. And the orange man on the street seems pretty practical. While he really wants Aoun to be the president, wishful thinking aside, he doesn't really believe that it's possible any more. He'd be content with a compromise candidate along the lines of General Michel Sulaiman. 

Recently, though, I had a discussion with someone higher up in the hierarchy, someone who had inside information. Although this person didn't give me many specifics, he did stress that Aoun would be president. I asked him if he meant that Aoun should be president or that Aoun would actually be president. He replied, "both." Then I asked if I should consider that remark to be from him personally or him as a party member. Again the answer was "both."

There are three possibilities here. First, it's possible that there is information to which I'm not privy, information which will assure an Aoun victory and prove my general sense of Lebanese politics to be wrong. I don't think this is the case, but that's partially why my general sense of Lebanese politics is as it is. Second, it's possible that I wasn't getting a straight answer and that this person was just giving me the party line. This seems logical and likely, but judging from the intensity and earnestness of his discourse, I don't think it's the case. Finally, I think it's most likely that this person was so personally and emotionally invested in the campaign that he couldn't really see straight anymore. This seems to be a common symptom of junior partisans who have neither the clear sighted detraction of the man on the street nor the cynical wisdom of the senior apparatchik.

In any case, not only did this person tell me that Aoun would definitely be president, but he also said that the Aounists would not accept anything less. I have the sneaking suspicion that when all is said and done, and the presidential deals have been done in smokey back rooms in Paris, Washington and Damascus, the orange upper echelons and the rank and file will be unsurprised, leaving the more zealous junior party members with inside information completely disillusioned.

According to an-Nahar, Michel Suleiman, commander of the Lebanese Army, has said that if the Lebanese parliament failed to elect a president by November 24 (the date when Lahoud's mandate expires), resulting in the forming of two rival governments, he would resign:

Lebanese army commander Gen. Michel Suleiman warned that he would resign if two competing governments emerged as a result of a presidential vacancy.

Suleiman said he would submit his resignation on Nov. 24, the day the term of President Emile Lahoud expires, if rival legislators failed to elect a new head of state.

The army commander said he would not tolerate a political divide that would threaten Lebanon's unity and the military institution.

"If they create two governments, I will personally hand in my resignation to each of the two governments and I will go home," Suleiman was quoted as telling ambassadors as well as political and spiritual leaders.

It's hard to say if this is a genuine effort to pressure both sides to compromise or a genuine effort to pressure both sides to choose Suleiman as president, but my initial response is that both sides need to know that Lebanon will not tolerate another formation of rival governments. A similar split marked the end of the civil war last time but would probably mark the beginning of a new civil war this time.

I haven't had much to say in this space about Lebanese presidential politics -- mostly because I haven't had much to say about the subject, full stop. A recent interaction with a well-placed Aounist, however, has made me question some of what I think about the situation. Up till now, the only interaction I've had with Aounists, like with most other political parties here, has been with the rank and file, the man on the street who has no more inside information than I do. And the orange man on the street seems pretty practical. While he really wants Aoun to be the president, wishful thinking aside, he doesn't really believe that it's possible any more. He'd be content with a compromise candidate along the lines of General Michel Sulaiman. 

Recently, though, I had a discussion with someone higher up in the hierarchy, someone who had inside information. Although this person didn't give me many specifics, he did stress that Aoun would be president. I asked him if he meant that Aoun should be president or that Aoun would actually be president. He replied, "both." Then I asked if I should consider that remark to be from him personally or him as a party member. Again the answer was "both."

There are three possibilities here. First, it's possible that there is information to which I'm not privy, information which will assure an Aoun victory and prove my general sense of Lebanese politics to be wrong. I don't think this is the case, but that's partially why my general sense of Lebanese politics is as it is. Second, it's possible that I wasn't getting a straight answer and that this person was just giving me the party line. This seems logical and likely, but judging from the intensity and earnestness of his discourse, I don't think it's the case. Finally, I think it's most likely that this person was so personally and emotionally invested in the campaign that he couldn't really see straight anymore. This seems to be a common symptom of junior partisans who have neither the clear sighted detraction of the man on the street nor the cynical wisdom of the senior apparatchik.

In any case, not only did this person tell me that Aoun would definitely be president, but he also said that the Aounists would not accept anything less. I have the sneaking suspicion that when all is said and done, and the presidential deals have been done in smokey back rooms in Paris, Washington and Damascus, the orange upper echelons and the rank and file will be unsurprised, leaving the more zealous junior party members with inside information completely disillusioned.

According to an-Nahar, Michel Suleiman, commander of the Lebanese Army, has said that if the Lebanese parliament failed to elect a president by November 24 (the date when Lahoud's mandate expires), resulting in the forming of two rival governments, he would resign:

Lebanese army commander Gen. Michel Suleiman warned that he would resign if two competing governments emerged as a result of a presidential vacancy.

Suleiman said he would submit his resignation on Nov. 24, the day the term of President Emile Lahoud expires, if rival legislators failed to elect a new head of state.

The army commander said he would not tolerate a political divide that would threaten Lebanon's unity and the military institution.

"If they create two governments, I will personally hand in my resignation to each of the two governments and I will go home," Suleiman was quoted as telling ambassadors as well as political and spiritual leaders.

It's hard to say if this is a genuine effort to pressure both sides to compromise or a genuine effort to pressure both sides to choose Suleiman as president, but my initial response is that both sides need to know that Lebanon will not tolerate another formation of rival governments. A similar split marked the end of the civil war last time but would probably mark the beginning of a new civil war this time.

I haven't had much to say in this space about Lebanese presidential politics -- mostly because I haven't had much to say about the subject, full stop. A recent interaction with a well-placed Aounist, however, has made me question some of what I think about the situation. Up till now, the only interaction I've had with Aounists, like with most other political parties here, has been with the rank and file, the man on the street who has no more inside information than I do. And the orange man on the street seems pretty practical. While he really wants Aoun to be the president, wishful thinking aside, he doesn't really believe that it's possible any more. He'd be content with a compromise candidate along the lines of General Michel Sulaiman. 

Recently, though, I had a discussion with someone higher up in the hierarchy, someone who had inside information. Although this person didn't give me many specifics, he did stress that Aoun would be president. I asked him if he meant that Aoun should be president or that Aoun would actually be president. He replied, "both." Then I asked if I should consider that remark to be from him personally or him as a party member. Again the answer was "both."

There are three possibilities here. First, it's possible that there is information to which I'm not privy, information which will assure an Aoun victory and prove my general sense of Lebanese politics to be wrong. I don't think this is the case, but that's partially why my general sense of Lebanese politics is as it is. Second, it's possible that I wasn't getting a straight answer and that this person was just giving me the party line. This seems logical and likely, but judging from the intensity and earnestness of his discourse, I don't think it's the case. Finally, I think it's most likely that this person was so personally and emotionally invested in the campaign that he couldn't really see straight anymore. This seems to be a common symptom of junior partisans who have neither the clear sighted detraction of the man on the street nor the cynical wisdom of the senior apparatchik.

In any case, not only did this person tell me that Aoun would definitely be president, but he also said that the Aounists would not accept anything less. I have the sneaking suspicion that when all is said and done, and the presidential deals have been done in smokey back rooms in Paris, Washington and Damascus, the orange upper echelons and the rank and file will be unsurprised, leaving the more zealous junior party members with inside information completely disillusioned.

According to an-Nahar, Michel Suleiman, commander of the Lebanese Army, has said that if the Lebanese parliament failed to elect a president by November 24 (the date when Lahoud's mandate expires), resulting in the forming of two rival governments, he would resign:

Lebanese army commander Gen. Michel Suleiman warned that he would resign if two competing governments emerged as a result of a presidential vacancy.

Suleiman said he would submit his resignation on Nov. 24, the day the term of President Emile Lahoud expires, if rival legislators failed to elect a new head of state.

The army commander said he would not tolerate a political divide that would threaten Lebanon's unity and the military institution.

"If they create two governments, I will personally hand in my resignation to each of the two governments and I will go home," Suleiman was quoted as telling ambassadors as well as political and spiritual leaders.

It's hard to say if this is a genuine effort to pressure both sides to compromise or a genuine effort to pressure both sides to choose Suleiman as president, but my initial response is that both sides need to know that Lebanon will not tolerate another formation of rival governments. A similar split marked the end of the civil war last time but would probably mark the beginning of a new civil war this time.