There are times (for instance, when one is boarding a plane in Sicily and dreading the cold rain that will undoubtedly great her at the other end in London) when resignation is a good thing. Yes, spring break was wonderful; but the end has come, bringing with it the promise of exams and half-finished essays. It is better to resign oneself to the dog days of studying, which will be much more productive if one is not constantly wishing she were in Italy instead.
This type of resignation constitutes an acceptance of reality, and a conscious step forward. But as good as resignation has been for my study habits, it has taken a less productive and more literal form in recent political developments in the Levant. If you thought nothing could make things in Syria and Lebanon more complicated than they already are, think again; they are heading down and even more tumultuous road due to the untimely resignations of Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati and Syrian National Coalition leader Moaz al-Khatib
Why would two important political leaders step down with the situation between their countries already so chaotic? It is an act of protest: both resignations were made to express opposition to the way certain events are unfolding in the region. The immediate reasons behind Mikati’s resignation, considered “dumb” and “silly” even by prominent Lebanese politicians, are his cabinet’s opposition to extending the tenure of Lebanon’s police chief and his parliament’s gridlock over the law that will govern the upcoming June elections. Mikati, believing the exit of the Sunni police chief would distort the political balance in favor of Hezbollah and anxious about the electoral legislation, encouraged the parties involved to “shoulder their responsibility” in the wake of his resignation and form a united government. For his part, al-Khatib was protesting the lack of consensus and prevalence of self-interest in the Syrian opposition forces. His readiness to negotiate with the regime has long distanced him from his fellow coalition leaders, and these differences have now led him to step down.
Is there any successful precedent for this type of political move? Obviously not on the Syrian side, given that there has never been such organized opposition to the Assad family’s power. In Lebanon, one of the most recent prime ministers to resign voluntarily was Rafik Hariri, the Sunni business tycoon who was in office from 1992-1998 and again from 2000-2004. At the time, the most sensitive political issue was the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, which had been going on for nearly thirty years. Hariri resented the Syrian presence and their influence over then-President Emile Lahoud. In 2004, Hariri resigned in protest of the extension of Lahoud’s term in office, and this resignation is considered to be an expression of his anti-Syrian sentiments.
The following year, the Syrian troops withdrew from Lebanon. But did Hariri have anything to do with it? In a sense, yes – his anti-Syrian stance led to his assassination in February 2005 by a Syrian-financed Hezbollah car bomb. His death, seen as a symbol of how bad sectarian tensions had become, prompted a surge of international pressure on the Syrians to leave Lebanon. The ensuing power vacuum, in which Hariri’s son briefly assumed the prime ministership before his cabinet collapsed under pressure from Hezbollah, saw the formation of the two political factions (the March 8 and March 14 blocs) that are the foundation of Lebanon’s polarized government today.
In short, all Hariri the Elder’s resignation did was situate him so firmly on one side of the Syrian conflict that he became a target. Granted, his consequent assassination led to Syria’s withdrawal, but that’s probably not the way he intended things to go. And despite this positive development in Lebanon’s foreign relations, its domestic politics have suffered ever since as Hariri’s murder has become a symbol for the conflict between the two blocs. And now Najib Mikati, who came to power in 2011 intending to build a moderate political center that could moderate these factions, is resigning in protest.
Now, it would be outrageous to draw exact parallels and claim Mikati is going to be assassinated. His resignation was done in a much different spirit from Hariri’s. Rather than signaling a definite stance on Syria (as Hariri’s resignation did, thereby endangering him), Mikati’s stepping-down is due to a desire for Lebanon to remain neutral. Though his support for the outgoing head of security forces is definitely not a pro-Assad move, it is not anti-Assad; he is merely concerned with making sure Lebanese Sunnis do not feel marginalized in the current conflict, thus inflaming sectarian strife. Mikati is resigning in protest of a move he believes will polarize Lebanon even further. But this doesn’t change the fact that resignations are totally ineffectual as a political maneuver. Nothing is going to happen – except another power vacuum as both blocs scramble to boost their position for the upcoming parliamentary elections.
As a political move, resignations cause nothing but chaos. In their pursuit of effective governance, Mikati and al-Khatib have confused the effects of resigning with those of threatening to resign. The latter, as Mikati’s record shows, is relatively effective. He has threatened to resign several times in the past couple years when Lebanese political parties (mainly Hezbollah) have tried to do silly things like opposing the UN’s special tribunal investigating Hariri’s assassination. To Hezbollah, this threat represented the loss of a moderate, malleable prime minister and the reintroduction of political gridlock, and they consequently backed down. But carrying through with the threat and actually resigning does nothing except worsen the sectarian tension and confusion that everyone feared in the first place.
As for Syria, it remains to be seen whether al-Khatib’s political exit will do harm or good (or indeed, do anything at all). After all, he has continued to involve himself in political affairs in a less official capacity, representing the coalition in Qatar at the opening of its embassy there and again at the recent Arab League summit, where the coalition controversially won a seat. Al-Khatib’s resignation does not seem to have had an adverse effect on his coalition’s international legitimacy (unsurprising, considering that he is still attending these functions as if he had never resigned). In fact, these recent political gains seem to suggest that the Syrian opposition forces are moving in a positive, legitimate direction. But going forward, it seems inevitable that the resignation will negatively affect the prospects of a political solution to the conflict. Al-Khatib’s resignation signifies the departure of one of the only powerful opposition politicians who supports dialogue with Assad, and in his absence as an official negotiating figure, it is probable that a compromise with the regime will no longer be on the table.
Overall, these resignations seem destined not to fix problems, but to avoid them and even cause further political disorder. Combined with Lebanon’s recent effort to declare itself neutral in the Syrian conflict through the Baabda Declaration (good luck with that), Mikati’s and al-Khatib’s attempts to cede power to others demonstrate a faith in the prospect for political consensus and reduced sectarian tension that their countries’ political history prove delusional. It may be too soon to tell what the effects of these actions will be on the delicate situation in the Levant, but I would bet my bottom dollar they won’t be all that great.