The Christians of Lebanon are on the brink of repeating the experience of the boycott in 1992, unless a “suicide bomber” from the two main forces, that is, the “Lebanese Forces” and the “Free Patriotic Movement”, enters into a political settlement that leads to the arrival of the “Marada” president, Suleiman Franjieh, to the presidency. , he resumes his presence in the system.
Many hypotheses are put forward by the media, most of which are not based on decisive information about the recent transformations, especially Franjieh’s morning breakfast at the residence of the Saudi ambassador to Lebanon, Walid Bukhari. “A shuffling of cards,” says one reporter, and many others ask unanswered questions. There is a loss in the media, coinciding with a loss on the political level in reading, and certainty of the essence of the shift in the recent Saudi position towards removing the “veto” from the candidates, and its reasons.
The transformation is a natural path for other developments rocking the region, starting with Arab normalization with the Syrian regime, and a Saudi-Iranian agreement sponsored by China, and does not end with American pressure to prevent a vacancy in the governorship of the Central Bank of Lebanon on July 31, with the end of Riad Salameh’s mandate. This is in addition to preparing a solid ground for starting the exploration process and then extracting gas from the Lebanese economic waters, and reactivating the Lebanese banking system, of Christian origin and process, after the banks turned into a mere “money changer” in the “exchange” platform.
Boycott means that these two forces will remain outside the system, for at least six years, at the moment of regional transformations, very similar to the 1990 transformations that pushed the most representative forces of Christians out of the system, until 2005. Christians boycotted the elections in 1992, but they They were unable to resume their political influence after that. Today the idea is storming the minds of Christians. They restore the stage of exclusion from the regime, and narrow options are discussed: Is confrontation an option that is less expensive on the internal level and on the Christian arena than an unequal settlement? Can Christians stay out of the regime for six years?
The best of the two options for Christians is bitter. The settlement results in internal political embarrassment in the Christian arena, and opens the door to internal bidding between the opponents.. As for the boycott option, it means the marginalization of an electoral base that brought at least 40 deputies to parliament seats. The first option, the least harmful, requires a face-saving formula. While the second one needs a confrontation plan, which seems impossible today, in light of the lifting of the international cover.
These discussions did not come out of the political salons, and did not reach the pioneers of the communication sites who built victories and defeats. They have not been spent so far, and they have not settled on a single formula, while Bassil goes to suicidal options, such as proposing the hypothesis of electing the president directly from the people, without It takes into account the imbalance in the demographic balance between the sects. And everyone lives on bidding.