From “Black Tuesday”, to “poor performance and political adolescence”, to “the dispersal of representatives” and the “declaration of the defection”, the introductions to the evening news bulletins, Tuesday night, were confused in describing the fact that the “Representatives of Change” bloc had disintegrated, which has been wracked by differences since the first week. And it swung about the entitlement to elect the deputy speaker of the parliament, the parliamentary committees, and the nomination of a new prime minister, and was shaken by the incident of the invitation to the Swiss embassy dinner and the ensuing line-ups, and it exploded in the elections for the council’s office and committees on Tuesday.
The change deputies are under pressure from popular criticism, from day one, and now the party supporters are gloating and under the tutelage of the media. And if the first pressure was justified, due to the feeling of some disappointment and the end of an experiment that many relied on to change something in the system, then partisan schadenfreude is a foregone conclusion that seeks to generalize the experience of failure that has existed for 30 years, and to justify the settlements and deals committed by the parties, which pushed the Lebanese below the poverty line. The unemployment rate has risen to more than 45%, according to the latest report of the International Labor Organization.
But the harshest indicator is the media’s treatment of an experience that has been shaken by the impact of political calculations and fragmentation between the axes. Media characterization bypassed the principle of criticism. While LBC described in the forefront the development of Tuesday, as “Black Tuesday”, which means announcing the death of the change experience, “MTV” tried to direct the deputies in the tone of “guardianship”, which is in fact supposed to be unacceptable, and sets an agenda for them. To search for consensus within the system, by asking: “Does those who voted for the change representatives want them to withdraw and limit their work to speeches inside and outside the parliament?”
The last question is the cause of a split in the communication sites between supporters of change, and voters for the 13 bloc, which ended on Tuesday. Is it permissible for the Representatives of Change to enter into settlements with the parties represented in Parliament, in order to allow them to oppose at home? Or should they retreat and refrain from any settlement?
|
In practice, what happened is the regime swallowing up its opponents. The system excluded those who violated it, and presented them with humiliating offers, by entering it in exchange for a settlement that elicited settlements. What the Speaker of the House of Representatives offered to represent them, from his bloc’s share, in compensation for their rejection of the first settlement, with a deputy whose name was named (Melhem Khalaf), is a humiliating offer, but he responded to the objection to the exclusion, after the failure of the compromise offer! Does the person who refuses the offer has the right to object to his exclusion in elections in which he does not have a majority?!
There is much talk about the “containment” of the conflicting axes of some representatives of change, within the policy of the “stick” in threatening their future, and the “carrot” in shaping their present, a subject that does not require insight to know it. Whoever follows up on statements and stances, realizes the extent of violations and temptations, which indicates an end that Michel Douaihy was the most daring in declaring and pulling himself out of its stagnant waters, waiting for the formation of the landmarks of the lineups soon.. The presidential election is not far away.
|