What Lebanon needs from its president is to come clean
And not to be irrationally upset about valid criticism

Lebanese President Sleiman is, reportedly, “very upset”*, and here is why.

Many fingers were recently pointed at him questioning his covert support for certain candidates running in the forthcoming general parliamentary elections. The latest accusation was very recently made over a TV interview by former minister Sleiman Franjieh who said that the director general of the Surete Generale, Wafik Jizzini, called on him on behalf of the president and made certain requests aimed at supporting certain would-be candidates. It has also been alleged that elements from many security agencies have been active in support of the same candidates at the direction of the president.

Of all the stories that circulated over the clandestine presidential intervention in the parliamentary elections process, the most specific was the Franjieh testimony on open air. I believe Minister Franjieh told the truth. His testimony, however, gives rise to two possibilities. The easier possibility is that Jizzini misrepresented the president and did not act pursuant to his orders. If this is true, there is a very simple solution. Jizzini should immediately be given an indefinite leave of absence by his superior, Interior Minister Baroud, be duly investigated and, if found guilty of a disciplinary or criminal offence, receive the appropriate punishment.

The more difficult possibility is that Jizzini was indeed and truthfully acting pursuant to presidential orders. This would mean that Sleiman failed to maintain two of the most essential duties of his office, namely:

1. the duty to stay above the political fray, and
2. the duty not to use state security agencies to subvert the integrity of parliamentary elections.

This is very worrying given the known long history of the Surete Generale in particular, and all state security agencies in general, of deep and wide spread intervention in general elections to bring about the success of “loyalist” candidates. In addition to this intervention, two other factors should be counted, namely:

1. the influence of big spending by certain candidates**, and
2. the near domination of a general sectarian environment featuring open sectarian instigations founded on baseless assumptions and rumors.

All this paints a bleak picture of the integrity of the electoral process and the extent of the true representative character of the next parliament.

Hence President Sleiman should promptly come clean either by sacking Jizzini or publicly taking responsibility for his own mistake and, in both events, by calling on the Council of Ministers to order all security agencies to cease and desist from any interference in the elections except to protect the right of the candidates and the people at large to fully and freely participate in the electoral process.

* The story was widely reported in the Lebanese media in the week of Monday, May 18, 2009. For example, on Tuesday, May 19, the Daily Star carried a front page story titled: “Sleiman ‘very upset’ over candidates’ attacks on him”.

** Two billionaires, Najib Mikati and Mohamad Safadi, are running on the same list for parliamentary seats in Tripoli, an under privileged city where the general population is visibly impoverished. A third billionaire candidate, Saad Hariri, leads a large list in Beirut and sponsors many other lists state-wide. The general population in the districts of the Hariri candidates is not exactly more prosperous than that of Tripoli. The billionaire candidates are known to pump money massively and freely into the process, often disguised as salaries for campaign workers and donations for the poor.