The near-total absence of environmental issues from the
priorities of Lebanese politics raises several questions, the answers to which
reveal deeper dimensions of the crisis of Lebanon’s political system.
The environment—representing a vital domain that precedes
the state and constitutes one of its core functions—holds little to no place in
Lebanese political life or in the literature of its various political parties,
albeit to varying degrees. It is neither a subject of dispute nor agreement
among them, nor has it ever been a central theme in the many periodic general
conferences held by these parties over decades. It is absent from the platforms
of their parliamentary candidates and those running for municipal councils—some
of which have produced the worst outcomes witnessed in numerous villages,
towns, and cities across the country. To these parties, the environment is
almost a mythical or imaginary subject.
This leads us to the problematic nature of the environmental
question. The environment is not a luxury issue. In addition to its role in
safeguarding and benefiting from Lebanon’s rich biodiversity, it intersects
with all concepts of development and good governance, and indeed provides their
very foundation. A political system or party lacking an environmental vision
cannot shoulder developmental responsibility. The absence of comprehensive
sustainable development visions in the plans of all Lebanese parties, albeit to
varying degrees, alongside the absence of concepts and practices of good
governance in the performance of successive governments, helps explain the
complicity of the system and the participation of many parties in encroaching
upon commons, public property, the environment, and cultural heritage sites.
In this sense, the environmental issue exposes the crisis of
both the political system and the parties, raising fundamental questions about
governance at the system level and about the social agendas of the various
parties. The confused understanding and inconsistent performance of both the
political system and the parties on matters of development are thus explained
by their reliance on “political priorities” or so-called “political interests”
of power-contesting groups, which they place above the environment as an
ethical, social, and developmental value. This value represents the very
essence of the state’s duty toward its citizens. As a result, the Lebanese
state has come to embody a meeting of necessity based on the division of
resources, rather than the outcome of a social contract that safeguards
citizens equally, secures their needs, develops local communities, addresses
unemployment, advances productive sectors, and reduces rural exodus. All of
these are fundamentally tied to the environment.
A return to the environment, in this sense, provides the
foundation for something beyond the preservation of Lebanon’s biodiversity. It
marks the beginning of building a sustainable socio-political developmental
system and a healthy space for Lebanese citizens to come together.
Published on تغريدة
.jpg)










.jpg)




