The committee season is upon us, and no one is throwing themselves more wholeheartedly into the spirit of things than Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who has set a fine example by proposing the formation of two committees of his own: one earlier this month to discuss abolishing so-called political sectarianism, and another, more recently, to thrash out a new round of the 80 or so political appointments needed to fill vacancies in the security services, judiciary and other ministries.
 
Let us leave for the time being the glaring hypocrisy of one man’s proposal to rid Lebanese politics of sectarianism on the one hand, and then reinforce it by creating a closed-door session to divvy up the national pie according to sects with the other, and focus on the straightforward abuse of power the latter involves.
 
Take Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun, who rode back into town from his 14-year Paris exile in 2005 on an anti-corruption and secular ticket. Nearly five years later, the former army commander is understood to be going toe-to-toe with Berri (whose other day job is head of the 99.999% Shia Amal Movement) over the top job at the strategically-important Directorate of the General Security. Aoun wants a Maronite to get the job (and was even apparently promised the position by his allies in Hezbollah, who want to ensure their weapons keep flowing into Lebanon while at same time appear even-handed), but Berri, who is desperately trying to reinforce his role as a Shia leader, is blocking the appointment, most likely because of a dispute with Aoun that started last year over election lists in the southern town of Jezzine.
 
This is just one example in this shabby national tableau. But don’t get us wrong; all parties across the Lebanese political spectrum are at it. Call us naïve, but there is a shockingly obvious one-way street between the electorate and the people they vote into public office. Maybe this is because the quid pro quo has already been done: a bundle of cash here, a quarry license there, all deals made in the run-up to the polls. Now it’s a case of “shut up, while we feather our political nests with the kind of people we want to consolidate our power base.” No, they are not necessarily the best qualified, and yes they will answer to the state before us. Accountability? Don’t make me laugh!
 
We have been reassured that a modicum of stability has returned to Lebanese politics. We have witnessed the reconciliations, the convoys once again heading to Damascus, all part of a so-called regional understanding. And yet with this so-called stability has come with it the same old corruption – let’s not mince our words – that has defined our political life for decades.
 
The 2005 Independence Intifada was never going to change Lebanon overnight. Those who took to the streets that spring – including the dynamic and idealistic rank and file of the Free Patriotic Movement – did so because of an aching frustration. With the withdrawal of the Syrian army came the hope that change would happen. We were not naïve; we knew the realities of the region, but we thought that maybe, those areas – economic and social reform – that could improve the quality of life and raise the national profile in the eyes of the world might be addressed with the best interests of the nation at heart. We had our chance and it appears we blew it.
 
These words will keep falling on deaf ears, but we will say them anyway. Only when the Lebanese state – an entity that appears to have been pushed into the background by shamelessly partisan horse-trading – is served by the country’s best and brightest (people who see their remit as serving their country, rather than their sect or party, and who admit that they are public servants accountable to the people) will we have a credible public sector.  

Until then, we won’t. It’s that simple.