Will the government be subjected to a political tremor?

Brigade

The government’s welcome to the army’s leadership plan to restrict arms in the hands of the state was a very important event in the path of the national crisis, as it is considered for the first time in many years that a constitutional institution is moving forward in adopting a clear road map to treat one of the most complex Lebanese dilemmas. However, this decision, which was supposed to form an internal meeting, quickly turned into a division title, with the withdrawal of the five Shiite ministers, which again revealed the limits of national understandings and the depth of the sectarian and political impasse.
Welcoming the plan, which is the verbal exit that elapsed in the phrase of approving the plan, not only a procedural step, but is a political declaration that the state, or at least a portion of its components, decided to face the file of weapons directly outside the legitimacy. This step came as a result of accumulated pressure: internal from political forces and popular segments that see in the weapon a permanent threat to stability, and external from international and regional parties that demand the state to prove its ability to impose its sovereign authority. Consequently, the government has sent a clear indication that the time of the back of this file has ended.
On the other hand, the withdrawal of the five Shiite ministers raises a deep problem at the charter level. The absence of the Shiite component of the decision, even if it does not drop it constitutionally, takes away the full cover. This re -recalls that any attempt to build state authority without a real partnership with all parties is governed by stumbling. The duo believes that the plan targets a completely composed and opens the door to weakening its regional position in light of the ongoing tension with Israel, which makes it deal with acknowledgment as a red line that cannot be overcome.
The first direct repercussions are exposing the government to a political tremor that threatens its ability to continue with the required momentum. It is difficult to imagine the implementation of a plan of this size, while a basic team within the legislative and executive authorities rejects and interrupts it. The dispute will inevitably be reflected on the rest of the sensitive files, such as appointments, economic reforms, and the relationship with international institutions. That is, the plan, instead of being an introduction to strengthening the state, may turn into an additional paralysis in political life.
On the military level, the plan puts the army leadership in front of a very difficult test. The army is required to implement a ratified government decision, but at the same time it realizes that any direct confrontation with the incubator of the weapon may lead to the bombing of the internal situation. Hence, it is expected that he will resort to a double approach based on graduation and dialogue on the one hand, and firmness in applying some procedures on the other hand. The success of this approach will need a wide political cover and effective international support, especially since the army suffers from financial and logistical distress.
Politically, the decision deepens the rift between two contradictory axes: the axis that sees that building the state is not complete without the exclusivity of weapons and the imposition of sovereignty, and the axis considers that any research in this file is outside the equation of “resistance” against Israel is equivalent to the removal of a national force. This gap between the two visions is not a technique but existential, because it is linked to the identity of Lebanon, its regional role and its position in the conflict of the axes. Consequently, the approval of the plan reopens the debate about the nature of the political system and its ability to absorb the major contradictions.
In any case, what happened can be separated from the broader regional scene. Western countries, led by the United States and France, have been pressuring for years to strengthen state institutions at the expense of irregular armed forces. Also, a number of Arab countries require the state’s progress in this file as an introduction to economic and financial support.
On the other hand, Iran and its allies believe that preserving the weapon of “resistance” is part of a broader regional deterrent strategy. Accordingly, the government decision also reads as a message abroad that the state is trying to prove its commitment to the discourse of sovereignty, even at the expense of the internal division.
The next scene is open to more than one possibility. If the army succeeds in adopting a gradual and containing approach, it may be able to impose steps on the ground that give political momentum and show the state’s ability to catch the file, even in a limited way. But if the confrontation escalates with the rejecting forces, the country may enter the stage of governmental disruption and institutional paralysis, and perhaps mobile security tensions. And between the two possibilities, the international worker remains decisive: the external support of the army and the government can provide a balance of a balance that prevents collapse.

The post Will the government be subjected to a political tremor? appeared first on 961 tobay Lebanon today.