Voting along sectarian lines is a known Lebanese phenomenon, which we hope will be followed by the less common phenomenon of national reconciliation. While everybody speaks ad nauseam of reconciliation – along with power sharing – these remain only words in diction, not intentions. Saad Hariri's talk about the need for cooperation among all Lebanese was beautiful, as was Sayyed Hassan Fadlallah's call for opening a new page based on mutual cooperation, understanding, and participation. But as in Barack Obama's speech addressed to Muslims a few days ago, what matters is the implementation of these promises. I hope that the winners will not act as if they are alone on the political scene. I hope the losers too will not turn to undemocratic means to circumvent the results of democratic elections. Achieving consensus in Lebanon is supposed to be easy, even if the voting took place along sectarian lines. This is because under the wider umbrella of the March 14 coalition, there are both Muslim and Christian parties and blocs. Similarly, there exists mixed blocs under the umbrella of the March 8 coalition. Still, the pro-government camp won in Koura by the Sunni vote, while the opposition won in Byblos by the Shiite vote. Turnout in Beirut III was the lowest in all of Lebanon, due to the presence of a Sunni majority, making the outcome clear and known in advance. Meanwhile, Hezbollah and Amal's candidates won in the Shiite-dominated areas where they are an overwhelming majority. In any case, this is all acceptable. Most important is the future, which will not be secured and protected until the Lebanese agree with one another. If the elections were a major challenge, then reconciliation is even a greater challenge. Lebanon has always been an arena of showdown between major regional powers, or those larger than Lebanon. While the American press saw the results a defeat for the axis consisting of Iran / Syria / Hezbollah, this matter cannot be explained in such an overt simplification. The Iranian-Syrian axis is still powerful, while Hezbollah remains the single greatest political party in Lebanon. Nevertheless, the results of the election may prove convenient to Lebanon if considered from a different perspective. This is because the United States linked the continuation of its aid to Lebanon - some of which is military – to the outcome of the elections. Since the results were as the United States had wanted them to be, its aid will continue, and I see no reason why the opposition should stand against this. There was a unanimous agreement that the Lebanese army, both its leadership and its officers, played a positive role in securing the elections and did not support any faction against another. I noticed that the American media, like me, was surprised by the results. I had expected a tie between the two factions, or for the opposition to win a slight majority with a margin of two seats. I relied in my expectations on what I saw and heard and on the views of my colleagues as well as the experts who know more about the intricacies of the elections than I do. While I am only knowledgeable with the South Metn district - where I vote, I am not well versed with the situation in Akkar or in Tyre for example. Perhaps these results reflect the concern of many Lebanese about the events of the 7th of May 2008, when Hezbollah's supporters took to arms in the streets of Beirut. They also reflect the Maronites' resentment of General Michel Aoun's harsh criticism of both the President of the Republic and the Patriarch. Still, Aoun's candidates won at least in Keserwan where elections are driven by very local motives and considerations. From the Taef to the Doha accords to the 7th of June, what's important now is the future. Of course, securing this future might be an easier task with Arab help and support, a task for which I nominate Saudi Arabia as a mediator. I noticed that the new Saudi ambassador in Lebanon, Ali Asiri, met with various Lebanese factions since his arrival, as has done the previous Ambassador Dr. Abdul Aziz Khoja before the situation worsened in Lebanon a while ago; the latter also had good relations with Hezbollah and Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in particular. As I heard inside the Saudi royal court and from the concerned Saudi officials, Saudi Arabia has always dealt with all the Lebanese without any discrimination, while the Kingdom does not like to be viewed as supporting any faction against another. As its relations with Syria improved, Saudi Arabia has become in an even better position to resume its relationship with all the Lebanese, and to help them chart their future without declaring a winner or a loser - this phrase too is as old as Lebanese politics itself. In all cases, when both the loyalist camp and the opposition say nice things, we tell them - and perhaps there's some benefit in repetition - what we said to Barack Obama: that what matters is actions, not words.
