Lebanese politicians like to link the Arab spring to the Lebanese rise against Syrian tutelage in 2005, i.e. following the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. However, if this connection is true, it should summon concerns and frustration over what awaits the rebellious Arab populations, rather than give the small country credit for the inauguration of the march toward the future. One would not need much discernment to notice that the “independence uprising” or the “cedars revolution” ended a few hours after the massive gathering staged on Martyrs' Square on March 14, i.e. when the organizers and representatives of the action failed to agree on the next step and exploit the popular success and the major gathering to achieve the minimum level of national demands, draw up a political program exceeding the sects and sectarianism and call for a truth and justice rising beyond the exposure of the murderers of Al-Hariri, despite its importance. The March 14 action stood still, then started retreating via superior electoral alliances and the confirmation of the impossibility to draw national fabric out of the sectarian wool. The politicians of the sects did not lie to their crowds and did not say, as the wolf said to little red riding hood, that they had become the grandmother of the innocent girl. The sectarian wolves did not wear a sheep's skin, but some among the Lebanese people deluded themselves into believing that the same leaders could change their skin for their sake, and due to their wish to overcome the past and exit Syrian tutelage. It is no secret that the aforementioned leaders chose to stand in an Arab camp against another for many years, and that – just like others – were confused upon the eruption of the Arab revolutions. It is probably not shameful for these same groups to try today to catch up with what they missed and seek credit, after they were astonished by accomplishments that did not exceed the toppling of tyrannical regimes, which are more similar to the March 14 leaders than the Arab rebellious crowds. However, the efforts stop at this point, in light of the resemblance between the methods of thinking, action and perception of politics between the Arab tyrannical regimes and movements based on familial, tribal and regional loyalty but are claiming to be democratic. And while the opposing Lebanese powers in the March 8 alliance are blaming the governments in which March 14 enjoyed majority for the utter failure in all the facts of governmental and developmental work, the source of these blames is not the commitment to a popular or democratic feeling, as much as it is caused by the Lebanese disputes and policies which are seen in villages between families and their members. In reality, the “independence uprising” should constitute an archetype to be avoided rather than followed by the Arab youth. Remaining under the hegemony of the sectarian groups that are by definition hostile to any idea exceeding their frameworks, interests and petty bias – i.e. anything related to general national interest – marks a threat facing all the facets of political and social regulations that could carry change. Hence, one should disregard the empty boasting of politicians who can feel history exceeding them. But it is unacceptable to reproduce sectarian projects that failed the test, based on the wish to ally with sectarian powers nowadays emerging in the Arab region. In other words, the Arab spring has not reached Lebanon and has obviously not emerged from it.
