As the year draws to a close, the Lebanese can forgive themselves for indulging in a bit of upbeat fatalism. Why, they argue, when all the economic indicators predict 6% growth in GDP, free-spending tourists converge on Beirut, and property sells like there is no tomorrow, should we get all steamed up about things we can’t change: chronic corruption, environmental negligence, curious national driving habits and a comatose public sector. Let’s face it, they might argue, half of the 6% growth was achieved when we didn’t even have a functioning government. They might also shrug off having to deal with the odd war every now and then. “One month and it’s all over. Then we can go back to making money” is the new reality. So why sweat? We’re doing ok; we’re just a bit quirky.

A bit cavalier you might think, but it is a mindset that is sadly very real. The Lebanese may be admired by visiting reporters for their glamorous defiance, their “live for the day for there may not be a tomorrow” attitude, but apart from making good copy for the international press, it is a philosophy that highlights just how few Lebanese believe they are part of a functioning state, let alone one in which they have faith.

The events of the spring of 2005, culminating in the March 14 rally, went some way to change this attitude, but apart from those heady days, and the army’s determined performance at the battle of Nahr al-Bared in 2007, the consensus is that Lebanon is a country in which people have learned to look after themselves.

It is a thinking that was seized upon by Hezbollah in the 1980s, when, pointing out – quite rightly it must be said – that the South had for decades fallen outside the state’s welfare compass, the party embarked upon a much-feted program of social services and an 18-year battle against Israeli occupation. All very noble, you might think, but the upshot is that today, Lebanon has two armies, one public and one private, the latter being a well-equipped and well-drilled militia that feels it can take on anyone, argues that it can’t rely on the state to defend Lebanon’s southern borders against the Zionist entity and says it will continue to adopt this martial posture until such time as it deems it is ready to down tools. 
 
Accordingly, there have been numerous calls over the years for Hezbollah to integrate with the army under one unified command from those who believe that one can’t really be a proper country with an armed gang running around willy-nilly shooting the place up. The most recent came on Friday, when Lebanon First bloc MP Okab Sakr told LBCI that the role of the Resistance should be clearly defined so as “to set the political balance within the country and enable the state to impose its authority throughout its territory.” Say what you want about March 14, but if one believes in the idea of the state, it is hard to argue with Sakr’s logic. Who would stand against the notion of a state seeking “to impose authority throughout its territory”?
 
Sakr’s comments come days before – we hope – the publication of the new government’s ministerial statement, one in which there has been much debate, mainly because of objections from March 14 Christians over Article 6, which refers to the role of the Resistance and its weapons. The objections are valid and fitting. Too often, Lebanese governments have chosen the easy way out with a carefully-worded – some would call it fudged – statement on the legitimacy of the Resistance and its right to ply its trade.  But the fact of the matter is that an armed Hezbollah is a threat to regional peace and an obstacle to Lebanon’s aspirations to achieve genuine statehood.

There are realities that cannot be ignored – the party’s close connection to Iran and that country’s regional aspirations for a start – but it doesn’t mean that we should accept having an armed group operating outside the state as a fait accompli just because the economic indicators are hale and hearty and the Lebanese have suddenly decided that as a people they are all bonkers so anything goes.

We must not fall into the trap of just accepting what is clearly not in the best long-term interests of the state in the same way we accept Lebanon’s other quirks. Hezbollah and its weapons are not quirky.