:
The series “Province 15” was not just an ordinary dramatic work in the Lebanese and Syrian arena, but rather quickly turned into a topic of intense political and social controversy. The series reopened sensitive files that go beyond the screen, and delves into the tense relationship between the two peoples, especially with regard to political memory, symbols, and name meanings.
Since the series was announced, discussion has largely centered around its name, not just its story or dramatic style. This focus came in particular after the clarification of the writer and actress Karen Rizkallah, who linked the name to the period of Syrian tutelage over Lebanon, when it was proposed to include Lebanon among the fourteen Syrian governorates to become “Governorate 15.”
This explanation sparked widespread political debate on social media. Syrians expressed their strong rejection of what they considered to be a political projection that burdens them with responsibilities that do not belong to them. Some considered the name a stigma that holds Syrians collectively responsible for the consequences of the practices of the previous regime, which increases feelings of hatred between the two peoples, despite their continued assertion that they are not part of that regime or its policies. On the other hand, Lebanese recalled memories of the Syrian occupation period and the violations and suffering that accompanied it.
In this context, director Youssef Khoury stated to “The main problem does not lie in the content of the good work itself, but rather in the symbolism of the name and the doors of political interpretation it opens.”
He explained that he personally would not have chosen the name “Province 15,” because it touches the feelings of a large segment of people and immediately calls to mind concepts associated with “Greater Syria,” which are concepts that still cause a major division in public opinion.
Khoury stressed that objecting to the name does not mean refusing to discuss common issues or Lebanese-Syrian cooperation. On the contrary, he believes that humanitarian and cultural cooperation between the two peoples is natural and acceptable, provided that it does not carry political symbols that can be exploited or misunderstood, especially in light of a fragile regional situation and a memory full of wounds.
He pointed out that “this debate cannot be separated from the file of missing Lebanese in Syrian prisons, which constitutes one of the most open wounds in Lebanese memory, in light of numbers that indicate the presence of about 17,000 missing persons whose fate has not been decided to date, amid accusations related to detention in Syrian prisons or to the files of organ trafficking, which makes the issue extremely sensitive and cannot be separated from any political or symbolic discussion related to the relationship between the two countries.”
Accordingly, the debate over “Conservative 15” went beyond simply being a discussion about a dramatic work, and revealed once again the extent of art’s connection to politics in the region, and the sensitivity of symbols and names in a context in which the relationship between collective memory, sovereignty, and identity has not yet been resolved.
In conclusion, this controversy has shown that any public statement, regardless of its source, remains vulnerable to political exploitation in a divided environment, and that symbols, even if they come through drama, can open postponed political discussions, which still need deeper processing that goes beyond the confines of the screen into reality.
