COMPARING AOUN AND MURR
Hazem al-Amin

NowLebanon
ArticleDetails.aspx?ID=165748
May 4 2010
Lebanon

The two men are of a different influence and mood, not to mention
the lack of cordiality and chemistry between them. However, one can
identify many similarities between their positions and what they
represent. The men in question are General Michel Aoun and MP Michel
al-Murr. One should not rush to deny such an assumption, which is
bound to draw denial… Indeed, a huge distance separates the two men
from one another, but this hypothesis is certainly tempting even if
promoting it requires a fair dose of imagination and adventure.

The two men hail from Christian social backgrounds that look anything
but similar. However, these backgrounds have granted those hailing
from them convergent views regarding their social, political and
sectarian relation with the Metn.

The relation with Armenian voters, important though it is in this
context, is not the only element that is shared by Michel Aoun
and Michel al-Murr. In fact, this relation bears witness to their
troubled positions in their respective religious communities and to the
drive toward an internal clash with the Armenian community. It also
represents an attempt to gain control of the Armenian community from
outside regardless of its particularity and its traditional position.

Murr’s Greek Orthodox identity may have weakened his "Maronite"
ambitions in the Metn, but he made up for it by his presence in the
state institutions. For decades, he used a vast network of relations,
which extended beyond Lebanon’s borders, to build himself a leadership
of an ambiguous sectarian and party identity in the northern Metn.

In contrast, Michel Aoun is nowadays trying – and has somewhat
succeeded in his endeavor – to bridge the gap with the Christian
public by using similar methods. He thus countered the receding
Christian support for him by tapping into Armenian votes in the Metn,
and Shia ones in Baabda and Jbeil. Today, he is trying to bolster his
status in the equation by being represented in state institutions,
including ministries and various departments, to make up for his weak
presence among the Christian masses.

If the weakness of the relation with their respective religious
communities is due to a willful decision to steer away from such a
sectarian structure, then this would be a good sign in Lebanon.

However, this is not the case for Aoun and his Metn rival, Michel
al-Murr, for they have preserved the Christian aspect in their
daily social output while striking bargains regarding the political
content of their respective messages. Both want to control the share
of Christians in the state in return for relinquishing this share
when it comes to the true meaning and function of the state.

Taking the comparison to other levels, other similarities can be
pointed out. Let us, for instance, imagine a televised interview
with Aounist MP Nabil Nicolas. Do his presence and statements not
give the impression that his "Aounism" is inspired by a chronic
"Murr-ism" that is deeply set in his mind and etched on his face? Is
MP Ghassan Mokheiber’s "realism" – which, for the past ten years,
has characterized this politician coming from the purity of the
academic milieu – not an example of the political culture shared by
Aoun and Murr?

We live today in a time of settlements and consensuses, and Michel
al-Murr is a symbol – or at least one of the symbols – of this period.

This article is a translation of the original, which was published
on the NOW Arabic site on Friday April 30, 2010