Nothing is as unattractive as the Lebanese municipal elections, except for the showdown between the Free Patriotic Movement and the Future Movement over the security agreement and the Telecommunications Ministry. However, the lack of attraction does not cancel their significance and meaningfulness. The abovementioned media debate started by a campaign launched and waged by Hezbollah against the Internal Security Forces and its pro-Future Movement General Director. The Future Movement then responded by launching a similar campaign on the Telecommunications Minister who represents the Free Patriotic Movement in the national unity government. Following up on the two campaigns and any of those shouldering the burden of these two campaigns is a mere waste of time. In brief, the first campaign is about one group in the government revealing its concern about the national security while there is a pro-government group which is indifferent about its citizens' security. The second campaign raises the slogan of the integrity of the administrative performance. The rivals in the second campaign, just like their counterparts in the first campaign, are present in the government. It becomes difficult amid the clamor of the speeches advocating for security and integrity and in light of the threats to embark on political and parliamentary measures, to develop an objective assessment of the threat posed by the two issues to the Lebanese security. Both the revengeful and childish aspects of the two campaigns leave no room for an independent vision which rests on what any attempt is supposed to rest on – to determine either the core of both issues or the course they should pursue in accordance with law. However, the “technique” used is almost the same in the “future” and “patriotic national” campaigns. This technique rests on: 1.The accused group denies that there is a problem originally; 2.Presenting evidence and proofs to reveal that the other group agreed on known occasions and signed published documents on what it calls as a source of a dangerous imbalance that threatens the security; 3.Both groups place the person targeted by the campaign (General Ashraf Rifi who is attacked by the “National Movement” and its allies, and Charbel Nahhas whom the Future Movement deputies call for his resignation) in a position where he cannot be targeted by suspicions. In reality, a Lebanese administrative official or politician can practice unlimited corruption, with no one questioning him as long as “his back is shielded” by his group and clan. Integrity and transparency are meaningless. Security is thus a tool used in political disagreements more than a mission practiced by apparatuses that are subject to laws. It is no secret that both movements are hurling the ruins of politics at each other after the open political action was withdrawn in Lebanon following the Doha Agreement and the American retreat and the inter-Arab reconciliation. These developments made the Lebanese parties and movements need to justify themselves and look for a “raison d'etre” in front of supporters who were defeated in the parliamentary elections (The Free Patriotic Movement) or whose leaderships were forced to make undesired positions and steps (The Future Movement). However, two bitter things cannot create love. The Free Patriotic Movement's only outlet and compensation is to launch attacks on its favorite foe represented by the Free Patriotic Movement, regardless if the accusations are founded or not. In return, the Future Movement seems in a dire need to pass the time by waging battles which it knows in advance will not provide a slogan or a real foe for it. The slogan of “truth and justice” was withdrawn from circulation and the foe Hezbollah enjoys regional immunity that does not bear side effects. In the meantime, the Free Patriotic Movement and the Future Movement can do nothing but leave their speech-makers speak freely in an arena that includes nothing but the remains of politics.
