Civil society is losing Lebanon’s battle - Michael Young - The Daily Star

 The popular movement that sprung up in the wake of the government’s disastrous handling of the waster crisis is in serious danger of making itself irrelevant. Discrediting the government and the political class was the easy part, but the foolish actions that have taken place in recent days, as well as the visceral reactions against the trash plan proposed by the agriculture minister, Akram Chehayeb, have turned the protesters into irritants, and that’s not in their interest.

A great deal can be said of Chehayeb’s plan that is negative. The return of trash collecting to the municipal level will most likely mean a division of the spoils among the political leaders who dominate municipalities in their areas of influence. In turn, that could mean that Sukleen will continue to be subcontracted to collect trash in some areas, while companies in which the politicians hold stakes would do so in others. And there is no mention in Chehayeb’s scheme of recycling. That doesn’t attract the politicians because profit is made on the weight of collected trash, and recycling would only cut down on that.

However, continuing to protest without purpose is no longer the way to address the trash crisis. The protests are all over the place today, with everyone voicing a grievance. While it is up to the government to find solutions, the role of civil society groups is not to block each and every initiative put forward, but to offer practical alternatives to what officials propose. And focusing on the resignation of the environment minister, Mohammad Machnouk, has to stop. His performance merited dismissal and protesters were justified in seeking accountability; but at this point we’re well beyond Machnouk, so that dumping trash outside his office is really no better than vandalism.

It is remarkable how many people initially saw the civil society movement as the embryo of a Lebanon that could transcend sectarian differences in defense of truly national objectives, circumventing sectarian leaders. This was always an illusion, much as expectations about the demonstrations in 2005 were.

What we are witnessing today is something different. People are protesting not because they want to change the sectarian system, but because they feel that the patron-client relationships put in place by the system are not working. Services are abysmal, infrastructure is collapsing, and the politicians, rather than ameliorating things, seek to redistribute the profits from state contracts in order to steal more money – or, at best, reinvigorate their struggling patron-client networks. In other words the political class is failing to fulfill its end of the bargain, so the Lebanese feel free to insult its members.

That sectarianism is archaic and stifling is a truism; that it reinforces corrupt leaders is evident. But few of those advocating a modern, democratic system of governance will admit that it is so anchored in Lebanese political culture, that real change can only take place from within the system itself.

This is doubtless easier said than done, but the buzz that has surrounded the civil society protest movement has failed to recognize how cunning are the barons of sectarianism. The rallies will be allowed to continue until they become more and more tiresome and indecisive, with no alternatives offered up by the protestors. We are already locked in a stalemate that resolves nothing, one that only benefits the political elite.

Nor is there much point lamenting the sectarian order when most Lebanese remain loyal to their sectarian leaders. Nabih Berri and Michel Aoun can mobilize as many if not more people than civil society groups, as they have done in recent weeks.

The way out of the present disarray requires focusing on the problem at hand, namely the trash crisis. Chehayeb has made a proposal and civil society groups have to concentrate on that. They have to examine his plan and ask what can be changed in it to ensure that trash will be safely disposed of, that we will not find ourselves in the same predicament in a few years’ time, and that the arrangement put in place is equitable. Civil society must also push for recycling, highlighting that it can be profitable in its own right, albeit in a different way than today, if that is what it takes to interest politicians in such a solution.

Their aim to undermine the political class, while it may be tempting, will backfire. The politicians will always be able to mobilize more support. And for all the faults of the politicians, and they are many, an effort to systematically demean the political class without being able to replace it is the worst of all options. Someone has to run this unfortunate country, and for better or worse the only ones who have the experience doing so for now are the dismal politicians in place.

A great deal about what motivates the civil society groups is defensible, so this is no endorsement of the politicians. But if Lebanese society is to have any chance of introducing gradual change for the better, then it has to deal with those who are in charge while offering feasible recommendations that everyone can judge on their merits. Demonstrating is not bad, but doing so without improving anything is a losing game. The civil society groups must reassess their approach very quickly.