There is a big difference between ballot boxes and true democracy. Voting is in reality a means to choose someone to implement that true democracy. Democracy here means ensuring the right of the people to enjoy economic and social well-being, cross the poverty line without the need for parallel institutions (or individuals) that surpass the state institutions themselves. It is those who were chosen through ballot boxes that can or must implement this democracy. Candidates thus run for parliamentary elections on programs in which they vow to lay the foundations for institutions, or enhance these towards securing socio-economic democracy for citizens, all citizens, not just for those who voted for them. Meanwhile, parallel institutions or individuals provide services exclusively for their supporters and as such curb the dominion of the state. Accordingly, the parliamentary elections last week come in the context of securing the citizens' rights through reinforcing the state. Despite the accusatory nature of the political discourse that prevailed among rivals during the election campaign, many political movements, parties, and individuals drafted economic, social and political programs that did not receive their fair share of public debate. Perhaps the most integrated program was the one put forth by the Future Movement and its allies. It included a “political manifesto” and a “program for economic and social action.” This program has now become official policy with the movement and its allies winning the majority of seats in parliament. Hence, they can now honour their promises. This program is the fruit of intense work by experts - something that is affirmed by its thoroughness – the like of whom martyr Prime Minister Rafic Hariri was known to choose to oversee the implementation of programs, such as martyr Basil Fuleihan. The Future Movement's economic program deserves the title, “Program for a utopian republic,” for its comprehensiveness, coherence, depth and breadth that encompasses even long term goals. “These objectives are not mere wishes, but are the legitimate rights of all citizens, as stipulated by the Constitution which considers that the practice of democracy, the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as economic and social development, are all interdependent and mutually reinforce each other.” Among these rights, also according to the program, is the right to participate in “the drafting of economic, social, and cultural policies” and the right to ensure that “the main objective of economic and social policies is the improvement of the standard of living and prosperity for all citizens at all levels and in all regions.” Moreover, the Future Movement incorporated under these rights, its micro- and macro-economic commitments which include terms that make even dreams unbelievable. As proof of its comprehensiveness, the program calls for improving business climate in Lebanon, stimulating traditional and promising industries, as well as the agricultural sector, developing information technology, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, and developing infrastructure. Meanwhile, healthcare, social rights, the reduction of poverty as well as economic and social marginalization, all occupy a big portion of the program, in addition to environment conservation and the strengthening of macro-economic stability as a fundamental condition to achieving sustainable growth as well as social and political stability. In parallel, the judiciary must be entrusted with overseeing the economic cycle. In addition, as much as the program was comprehensive, it was deeply detailed and as such it is expected to be implemented because it is fully worth the difficulties in drafting it and reaching consensus around it. These ideas are considered to be fundamentals in developed democracies and are advocated by all parties in Lebanon, not only with the start of the Prime Minister Rafic Hariri's tenure in power, but rather since the start of the French mandate, then independence up until the Taef Agreement. However, and for some unknown reason, these ideas all failed through the mandate of the new parliament, only to resurface again as campaign programs, slogans, and promises. But why then, this failure? The greatest and continuing challenge facing Lebanon at present and in the future is how to enhance the economy to become competitive, and to secure employment and improve the standard of living for the Lebanese by eliminating the impediments to economic growth and promoting balanced development policies. Therefore, the Future Movement's program admits that a successful economic program “is one that is subject to constant re-evaluation and revision” with the aim of “adhering to effective actions and ceasing ineffectual policies.” Success also necessitates “a uniform and homogenous authority with a clear economic vision. The governing team too must be able to carry out the program.” But such an authority is not only secured through “governmental homogeneity,” but rather through something deeper and more established, i.e. “a capable sovereign and democratic state.” This was recognized by the program's architects, hence the reference to the capable state as “one that provides protection for all the Lebanese; it is the civil non-sectarian state liberated from sectarian constraints and protected by an independent judiciary.” Also, the authors of the program-manifesto recognize that it was the late president Fouad Chehab who set the foundations of the modern state on this same basis “through developing the state's facilities, institutions, and oversight regimes.” They hence reassert the need to “reactivate oversight agencies, put a developed and transparent system in place through which government employees are appointed” and improve governance. It remains for the team that has governed, and that is governing, to match words with deeds, starting with “the re-evaluation and review of previous programs” then establishing the state of institutions away from sharing the “spoils.”
