The Danger of Microphones: Empowering the Insane and Theatrical

"Stability in Lebanon should never be taken for granted," concludes a recent article on Lebanon in The Economist. Though the respected British weekly eloquently states the obvious - that the Lebanese state of affairs is as precarious as ever - Lebanon's rival factions continue to trade jabs over everything from political vision to the proper pronunciation of their respective names.

The venomous political discourse is not new, but this is precisely the problem: the Lebanese have become accustomed to vitriol - many even delight in it - and have failed themselves by not demanding more restraint from their leaders. In a recent interview on Kalam al-Nass, an influential political talk show, Walid Jumblatt said the following:

"Do you know what the most dangerous weapon is? Along with nuclear weapons, microphones are the most dangerous of all. People - particularly in our East [that is, the Middle East] - throw caution to the wind when speaking in front of a microphone, as they play to their host or their audience."

Coming from Jumblatt, a controversial figure who has often spoken and acted recklessly, this statement contains a powerful truth despite - or perhaps because of - its messenger: since the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, particularly since the July 2006 War completely exposed the fundamental differences within Lebanese society, careless words and irresponsible political acts have pushed Lebanon to the brink of another civil war time and again.

Of course, international and regional political considerations have contributed greatly to the instability in Lebanon. Because of its pluralistic society, Lebanon has long been open to the interests of other actors.

Nevertheless, the Lebanese political class has been a willing bedfellow, and its respective members have continued to leverage the interests of international patrons against their domestic rivals - such games are not new to Lebanon.

The Lebanese have yet to tire of their leaders, who are fighting for scraps in a country smaller than Connecticut while expecting the rest of the world to make Lebanon the linchpin of the international system. In all likelihood, the Lebanese have not tired because communal insecurity is a powerful incentive to lend unflinching support to one faction or another.

Yet, neither communal insecurity nor the system it has enshrined necessitates irresponsible leadership. Over the past few years, millions have taken to the streets in Lebanon. Peaceful, spontaneous protests have gradually made way to staged rallies, political posturing, and an incessant war of words that borders on the insane.

It should be stressed that the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly positively set Lebanon apart from many other countries in the region. It should also be stressed that the Syrian regime often stoked fears of instability in Lebanon to justify maintaining control over the country.

But, as the cliche goes, rights come with responsibilities. It is one thing to embrace honest, hard-fought political debate. It is quite another to accept reckless rhetoric that risks unleashing forces beyond the control of even the most capable of men.