Lebanon will be Weak until the Rule of Law is Strong

Beirut, May 16, 2008: Of all the human rights that have been systematically obliterated in Lebanon over the past century or so, the most precious is, unquestionably, the right to life, especially when large numbers of human beings, innocent or not, are easily and summarily put to death with little or no mercy. The next most important human right in peril is and has always been the right of free speech. This right is almost equal to the right to life, not only because the ability to express oneself is a decisive and distinct privilege of the human kind but also due to the fact that many of the killings represent flagrant acts of repression against the exercise of the right of free speech by scores of gifted Lebanese intellectuals and activists.

The right to life and to free speech, as well as the other internationally recognized human rights, can only be protected by the law, and not by vigilantism. Similarly, the abuse of those rights, by infringing upon the rights of others, cannot be left for vigilant individuals or groups to settle on their own initiative. For both the protection of rights and the protection against the abuse of rights can only be entrusted to law in accordance with pre-existing rules equally respected and equally applied.

The recent brief shutdown of two television stations that carry the Future label and are owned by the Hariri family evokes the memory of the indefinite shutdown of MTV, owned by Gabriel Mur, in the summer of 2002. It would be interesting to ask the question: Which one of the two cases is more flagrantly representative of the state of lawlessness that continues to prevail in Lebanon to the unending detriment of human rights?

Both the Future stations and MTV were shut down on "orders'", except that the MTV order was an official "judgment" passed by two judges sitting on a Beirut court of appeal. Strangely, the judges seized the case without any prosecution or the bringing of an action by any claimant. They gave their decision without summoning the owners of MTV to make their defense against the charges brought autonomously by the court itself. MTV was not accorded the benefit of the presumption of innocence or allowed any delay for appeal. Every effort by a team of first-class lawyers to challenge the closure decision was busted, either by the same judges who made the decision or by higher judges of the court of cassation on the flimsiest of procedural grounds. MTV's equipment rotted under police seal and Gabriel Mur was left with little resources to re-launch his station once the changed political environment - and not the court decisions, which remain standing - allowed the resumption of its broadcast.

This is where the two cases differed.

The similarity lies, however, in the real motives for their shutdowns. They all became very sharp and potent political instruments to foster the political agendas of their respective owners. In the process, the political opponents of the owners - which included, in the MTV case, the owner's own brother and niece - developed strong grievances. If the Future stations and/or MTV exercised their rights of free speech in a manner that justly gave rise to such grievances or abused the human rights of others, the solution was for the aggrieved parties to bring action in the courts of law. It appears that this option was never available or effective, except in theory, and continues to be so.

In addition, one should not forget that the process of licensing of TV stations left a lot to be desired by restricting the licenses to a select few who had the political power and the money. Furthermore, and in plain violation of the law which forbids the ownership by any one person or family, directly or indirectly, of more than 10 percent of the shares of a company that owns such license, each TV station is owned and/or controlled by one person and/or his family members and/or fully controlled cohorts. Finally, the idea that the media, including TV stations, owes its first duty to the public, and not to the selfish objectives of its owners and/or their sponsors, was, and continues to be, totally absent.

All the above is symptomatic of, and further contributes to, the already existing general state of lawlessness and the total absence of the rule of law in Lebanon. Under such conditions, the law is taken into the hands of individuals who make, and enforce, their own private "law," not the duly enacted statutes that appear on the books of the republic, and change their own rules of "law" as they go depending on the particular needs of the moment. As a result, the weakest individuals are chronically deprived of the equal protection of the law, not only when they are faced by more powerful adversaries, but because many of their judges, duly appointed in accordance with the law, do not feel or act as if they are bound by the law, which does not protect them, either.

In this persisting general state of lawlessness the Lebanese are divided into two broad categories: Category One consists of those who do not consider themselves bound by the law of the land and make, and enforce, their own private rules as and when needed and apply such rules with no advance warning or mercy to the general public; and Category Two, which comprises the general public consisting of the weak and disenfranchised Lebanese. Unfortunately, when the intellectuals, entrepreneurs, scientists and professionals have to make a choice, they mostly opt to join Category One as mere surrogates, and, as a precondition, assign away their right of free speech.

This is one of the reasons why Lebanon's dangerous crises never, ever, come to an end, and Lebanon will always be weak, vulnerable and divided.

Make no mistake. The only way to bring Lebanon out of this chronic state of weakness and vulnerability is to establish and abide by the rule of law with all its necessary prerequisites. Among the most significant of such prerequisites is the full recognition of, and protection for, human rights, starting with the right of free speech, which is the cornerstone for accountability. This cannot happen before all "Category One Lebanese" are, like former European nobility and feudal lords, decisively brought under the law and become fully accountable, and their power of private rule-making is decisively ended. Simultaneously, "Category Two Lebanese" must be enfranchised and energized by providing them with concrete socioeconomic protection and a job creation program which, together, bring an end to poverty, with affordable housing, and with state-subsidized and decent education and training. In such a state of liberation, "Category Two Lebanese" must be allowed to determine their own destiny through democratic representation brought about by general parliamentary elections based on the one-man-one-vote principle in a repression-free and bribery-free environment where spending by politicians and candidates is strictly controlled. Part of the requirements is for substantial numbers of the Lebanese intelligentsia to retreat from their positions of surrogates to "Category One Lebanese" and join the ranks of their "Category Two" brethren to actively help with the creation of political leaderships of the modern kind.

Muhamad Mugraby, a lawyer, human rights defender, and president of the Center forDemocracy and the Rule of Law, wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR. His e-mail address is mugraby@cdrl.org.

For further information: E-mail info@cdrl.org and visit http://www.cdrl.org/.