Why doesn’t Joseph Aoun launch an internal dialogue

At a time when the divide between the Lebanese seems to be widening, particularly with regard to direct negotiations with Israel, some parties are wondering why President Joseph Aoun is not taking the initiative to launch an internal dialogue, as he promised during his inauguration speech. This dialogue is now essential, according to the opinion of many Lebanese parties. On the one hand, to try to reduce internal tensions that can be the prelude to clashes and security slippages. On the other hand, to find a solution to the current impasse in which Lebanon finds itself.

At a time when the negotiations seem to be frozen, some believe that it is time to calm the internal situation through a national dialogue, while waiting for regional and international developments to settle down. Because if it fails, it cannot be accused of having had an impact on the negotiations. On the other hand, if it manages to move things forward and strengthen internal cohesion, Lebanon will have taken a big step towards stabilization.

However, this argument does not seem to convince the Baabda Palace, which believes, on the contrary, that today more than ever, such a dialogue cannot be constructive. To be convinced of this, say the supporters of this theory, one only has to recall the debates during the plenary parliamentary session to discuss the general policy of the government. The Lebanese have only remembered the violent and personal exchanges between the deputies, the latter having, for the most part, one main concern: populism.

In such a context, launching an internal dialogue on the fate of Hezbollah’s weapons and on what is now called a “national defence strategy” could be a bad idea. The various protagonists could seize the opportunity to display criticism and, perhaps, even violent exchanges, which would quickly get out of hand and lead to the end of this dialogue in even more delicate circumstances than those that existed before it was launched. Under these conditions, and while the regional and international situation remains confused, initiating a dialogue that would be short-lived would only aggravate the divisions. The situation in the country would worsen and the leaders would thus have squandered a card that, one day, could be useful and become a path to salvation. Because, at the end of the day, dialogue has its conditions and must be held in a favourable climate, if only at the level of the intentions of the participants. Indeed, if a dialogue is to succeed, the participants must be concerned to conduct it and even to maintain it. They should even be ready, if necessary, to make concessions so that it is not broken. This could only poison the general climate of the country. However, so far, it is obvious that most of the protagonists do not want to reach compromises, each continuing to bet on the defeat of the other. The head of state also does not have the necessary prerogatives to push the protagonists to participate in such a dialogue, and they could not only be present to make it fail, but to boycott it outright. There have been previous experiences where the idea of a national internal dialogue has been launched, but many parties have refused to participate.

That is why the Head of State cannot take the decision to launch an internal dialogue on the adoption of a national defence strategy if the Lebanese parties are not ready to participate and are not willing to discuss calmly and constructively. Circles close to the presidency also point out that, when Hezbollah officials call for such a dialogue, they know perfectly well that this request cannot be implemented for the time being, because other parties do not want it. In reality, the Lebanese are still in the same vicious circle, when one party feels weak, it calls for dialogue thinking that it can compensate for its lack of resources in this way, and when it feels strong, it no longer wants it, because it is convinced that it does not need it.

For all these reasons, the head of state believes that this is not the time for an internal dialogue. According to sources close to Baabda, these demands are more a matter of political tug-of-war. Joseph Aoun prefers bilateral dialogue with Hezbollah. But for some, there is also another reason why the president does not want to convene a dialogue at this time: he would prefer to be solely responsible for the negotiation process that he has already started and for which he assumes responsibility. At some point, it will probably be necessary to obtain the approval of all the parties, or at least to consult them, but this is not yet the case.