LEBANON: The Syrians may have left but Damascus will still cast a long shadow, predicts Michael Jansen
Lebanese hope the withdrawal of Syrian troops and intelligence agents from their country will herald an era of democracy and change. A recent poll showed that majorities in all the country's communities want the ruling establishment to abolish the country's undemocratic confessional political system.
Commentators argue that Beirut can no longer cite the Syrian presence as an excuse to delay implementation of the 1989 Taif Accord, which obliges Lebanon to end sectarian representation at all levels in the government, administration and army and identification of individuals according to their sect and denomination.
But Lebanon is likely to carry on as before, during and after the 15-year civil war (1975-90). Lebanon continues to be governed by a sectarian system founded on a power-sharing formula which divides the political cake between Christians and Muslims on a 50/50 basis, even though today Christians are estimated to constitute only 30-35 per cent of the population.
The status quo is guaranteed by the allocation of the presidency to Maronite Christians, the prime ministry to Sunni Muslims and the speakership of parliament to Shias, as well as the feudal relationships many politicians have with their constituencies.
Syrian troops intervened in Lebanon's civil war in 1976 to preserve the system which had come under challenge from the then Druze leader Kamal Jumblatt, an advocate of the abolition of confessionalism. Jumblatt, who led the secular National Front and enjoyed the military support of Palestinian fighters, was on the verge of defeating Maronite defenders of the status quo when Syria intervened at the request of President Suleiman Frangie, a Maronite warlord with close ties to Damascus.
Jumblatt and the Palestinians were defeated. Thereafter, Syria strove to maintain the traditional communal balance and mediated between Lebanese politicians who took the road to Damascus whenever they could not resolve disputes. Syrian tanks and troops fought Israel's army when it invaded Lebanon in 1982 and Syria gave logistical and political support to the Lebanese Shia Hizbullah movement which forced Israel to pull its soldiers out of southern Lebanon in 2000.
Many Lebanese believe Syria should have pulled out of Lebanon at that time because resentments against Damascus built up when its forces and intelligence operatives stayed on and intensified their interference in Lebanese affairs. Syria became identified with mismanagement and rampant corruption and was blamed for Lebanon's economic and political woes. Now that Syria's open intervention in Lebanon's affairs has come to an end, Lebanese can no longer blame Syrians for whatever goes wrong.
Of course, Damascus will continue to exert covert influence on politicians, administrators, militarymen and businessmen from all Lebanon's 18 sectarian groupings. Since most deputies in the current parliament are expected to win re-election and since pro-Syrian deputies could constitute a majority in the new chamber, Damascus could retain much of its political clout. Therefore the new parliament is unlikely to demand the disarmament of Syria's ally Hizbullah in compliance with UN resolution 1559 or implement the Taif reforms.
Syria will also continue to exert economic influence. Lebanon is surrounded on three sides by Syrian territory and exports goods and produce to the Arab hinterland via Syria. Lebanon's construction, agricultural, and tourism sectors rely on Syrian labour. Syrian clothing and manufactured goods flood Lebanon's markets.
Partitioned by France after the first World War, Lebanon and Syria are intimately connected on political, economic, familial, cultural, and social levels, making divorce impossible.