Slander: From Suleiman to Aoun
Image credit: Michele Imad
Power tends to corrupt. Principles are put aside or buried all together, stances differ, and, quite frankly, hypocrisy becomes obvious.
Since the beginning of the October 17 revolution, countless protesters and well-known activists have been called in for questioning, arrested, or locked up for days or even weeks at a time.
The question that arises at this point, if I dare to ask, is why is current President Michel Aoun allowing this to happen? Did his supporters not suffer the brunt of the Syrian occupation and its brutality? Is it so hard to understand that many people have nothing left to lose, so all they can do is cry out against their oppressors?
I think it’s safe to argue that Lebanon has not witnessed a wave of arrests since the era of Syrian tutelage. Freedom of expression has always been considered sacred in Lebanese political life and a liberty that most of us Lebanese are keen on safeguarding. Attempts to silence the revolution during “the strong era”- a term used to describe Aoun’s tenure since he was appointed president in late 2016 - have encountered backlash on social media and fierce opposition on the streets.
Anyone who followed the events leading up to Aoun becoming head of state will understand why I used the word appointed and not elected. It’s no secret that the country was in a presidential vacuum for two and a half years before the infamous deal was struck between Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), Saad Hariri’s Future Movement, Hezbollah, and the Lebanese Forces to bring the 85-year-old former army general to Baabda Palace, in a way deemed unnatural to any democracy. Yet another settlement in Lebanon’s long history of cross-party deals, albeit short-lived.
When discussing the delicate situation of the presidency in Lebanon - which some were previously wary of even talking about, fearing being accused of slander - I can’t help but remember the days when Aoun would constantly attack ex-President Michel Sleiman, when the former was still head of the FPM and based in his Rabieh residence, a small prestigious town nestled in the hills northeast of Beirut.
Videos of Aoun and other party officials began to resurface during the national uprising, depicting them lambasting Suleiman for having their supporters interrogated. It served as a reminder of how political stances and principles are trashed when a selected leader reaches power and refreshed memories of the hypocrisy demonstrated by the party. Tweets by Aoun’s son-in-law, former minister, and current MP Gebran Bassil, also returned to the spotlight, showcasing an “advocate for free speech.” “Freedom of expression is sacred. I've seen all types of defamation and insults on Twitter, hashtags, graphics…” Bassil tweeted in June 2013, when FPM comrade Jean Assi was detained after using foul language against former-President Michel Suleiman.
Unlike other positions in government, there is a recognizable sensitivity that surrounds the Lebanese presidency; the highest role for a Maronite Christian in the Republic, according to the National Pact of 1943. Yet, this didn’t stop Aoun from constantly attacking Suleiman during his term, who also became president as a result of (yet another) political settlement in 2008. Are we allowed to ask why it’s not acceptable for us citizens to question the presidency? Is it permitted to ask why the people cannot express anger when the army and the police force employ excessive force during demonstrations, at times sending protesters to the emergency room with broken bones?
It seems that only those in power or those backed by the men in power are allowed to question the establishment, and not the ordinary citizen facing one of the most corrupt and divisive systems on the planet: a system of nepotism, clientelism, and embezzlement shrouded under a façade of “national unity and fair representation of sectarian groups”.
It is unfair and unreasonable to accuse Aoun or his party alone for the accumulation of crises that Lebanon is facing today. Decades of corruption and mismanagement are to blame rather than a president with limited constitutional prerogatives and who has been in the position for less than four years.
However, the last decade has seen the FPM take over several important ministries and administrative posts, such as the energy portfolio. Annual spending at this ministry and the state-run Électricité du Liban - the headquarters of which was severely damaged after the August 4th explosion - account for about half of the nation’s debt, currently standing at approximately 90 billion USD, the third-highest GDP-to-debt ratio in the world. Evidently, it is unreasonable for the FPM to deny their involvement in the crises and to throw all blame onto their predecessors, those they have shared the establishment with since at least 2009.
Even with these mounting and competing crises, what concerns Lebanese citizens the most today is the fear of repercussions from criticizing politicians during these unprecedented and stressful times. Traditionally considered a beacon of free speech in the Arab world, Lebanon must protect this sacred right at all costs. Those in power must not intimidate, threaten, or use excessive force against a population reeling from all but economic collapse.
During parliamentary consultations in late August to name a new prime minister, MTV Lebanon was barred from entering the Presidential Palace in the town of Baabda, accused of “slander” by “insulting the president”. Yet another blow to Lebanon’s free press during Aoun’s tenure, the channel, in turn, has initiated steps to sue the presidency. During the Syrian occupation, MTV was censored and shut down by the Ba’athist regime, which also drove Aoun out of Baabda in October 1990 when they bombed and stormed it, forcing him to seek refuge in the French embassy.
After his appointment nearly four years ago, President Aoun stood at the entrance of the palace where a banner hung over him reading “The People’s Palace”. This is just another example of popular rhetoric that gave a false sense of optimism to many Lebanese, who believed they now had a president who was ready to welcome his citizens with open arms, regardless of their religious or political affiliations.
Is it fair to ask, as citizens who anticipated change after his appointment, why the former general has not yet lived up to his promises? Aoun has spoken about the mafias in control of the country several times without naming them. He has said on numerous occasions that corruption is widespread and merciless, eating its way through state institutions whilst people pay the price for the wrongdoings of a dysfunctional system. Until this very day, not one top official is behind bars.
There are two possible explanations: either he is incapable of bringing anyone to justice or his circle is complicit (with or without his knowledge). Neither option is palatable. I ask myself, is this hypothesis itself considered “slander”? Would our President and his aides consider this “insulting language” against the head of state or offensive in any way? With no intention of defaming the presidency, I hold onto my constitutional right to ask these questions because I and millions of Lebanese deserve answers.
So where did Michel Aoun act differently to Michel Suleiman, the man he constantly criticized? As somebody who at one point in time believed in Michel Aoun - holding onto that hope until shortly after he was selected to lead the country by a mixture of sectarian parties - it saddens me to see activists being terrorized during his “strong era”.
One would think a man who fought for freedom and promised to uphold free speech would protect his citizens, even those who choose to criticize him, and intervene when security and military personnel were breaking into the houses of youth thirsty for change; leading a historic revolution seeking to root out everything that has been wrong with the country for 30 years.