Observers raise a set of concerns about the objectives of the “Life” association and its direct involvement in participating in the upcoming parliamentary elections, which will possibly be scheduled early to mid-spring, in full coordination with “Koullouna Irada” after the failed communication attempts with “Nahwa Lwatan” whose members categorically refuse to deal with the existing political forces regardless of the latter’s’ level of power.
These concerns were fortified by the objectives set by “Life”, whose funding is provided by a group of businessmen mainly residing in Washington and London. This funding would result in complete control over the ability to give the green light to particular projects. This has become even more alarming with the news that those businessmen have ties with various organizations who have their own agenda for multiple capitals in the region.
Lebanese wise, the role of “Life” in selecting their prime candidates also raises doubts and suspicions, since the selection is done primarily to gain the political and financial support of the “forces of change” through “Koullouna Irada”. Within this context, certain groups of the revolution are speculating about the basis by which the two resigned deputies Naamat Frem and Michel Mouawad were chosen, despite them being allies with the Free Patriotic Movement party and their ongoing support to Gebran Bassil – Leader of FPM party and the “Strong Lebanon” bloc in parliament – and giving support to the presidential power, thereby contributing to the economic downfall by turning a blind eye in return for personal services to some of their supporters.
Speculations about the criteria that led to choosing the leader of the Phalanges party and resigned MP Sami Gemayel were also discussed. Sami Gemayel inherited decades of authority within the Lebanese government since the independence, and until recently was considered a part of the ruling class. He also carries the legacy and the responsibility of his father’s presidency and what resulted of it, a presidency Sami Gemayel described as the best presidency. will the high standards and the promised change towards the better be achieved by repeating the experience of former President Amine Gemayel?
If sharing power with the existing ruling parties is not a condition that prevents cooperation with these parties, why does “Life” exclude, for example, the Lebanese Forces party from the “forces of change”, especially since it is not polluted neither in politics nor in authority as it is the case with the trio who preach change but are soaked in corruption, Frem Mouawad and Gemayel. The Lebanese Forces party opposed various political parties that monopolized the authority in the government, prevented the signing of many suspicious deals, formed an integral part of the revolution, provided the revolution with popular momentum that contributed to enabling the revolution to spread, impose its rhythm on the then-existing government and overthrow said government later on. The Lebanese Forces party also refused to participate in governments after the “October 17 revolution” despite multiple temptations sent its way.
This narrative leads to the possible conclusion that “life” is selecting candidates among the traditional ruling parties that have limited representation and power in order to form a bloc that does its bidding, that proposes and executes its suspicious projects to pay the debt accumulated from the aforementioned funding, while the weighting force formed by the Lebanese Forces cannot agree to pass what is not compatible with the Lebanese national interest.
The Lebanese people have had enough with this commercial pattern in dealing with their affairs, so leave them alone to deal with their issues and tragedies, and worry yourselves with reconfiguring the authority away from this destructive approach, and this goes out to whoever adopts this approach and stands behind it.
(Translated from Arabic by Maro Slaiby)