Opinion piece by Gaelle Nohra, Staff Writer

April 5th, 2021

One year and five months later, the day of October 17th still occupies its ever-heavy position on the Lebanese calendar and in the collective Lebanese memory. While the day irrefutably re-conceptualized what effective governance ought to resemble, and recollected what the pre-2019 era brought of malfunctioning, has it managed to draw the post-2019 era envisioned?

On the historical scale, the period we’re currently witnessing remains more of a short-run prospect, and thus forms poor assessment for the change yet to come. However, and as put by John Maynard Keynes “In the long run we are all dead” – so even if we might only live to witness a partial process of change, the latter still forms a decent estimate of the final outcome.

Beyond compare, the uprisings incentivized the Lebanese community to become both more informed and involved about the happenings taking place within their territory’s border while simultaneously proving that the way out of the turmoil lies exclusively in the hands of a brand new political order. That said, it also contributed to the normalization of despise directed towards individuals having affiliation towards ruling parties. If you’re a local Lebanese, then you’ve definitely came across these endless verbal quarrels in the comment section of politically-provoking posts where the discussion’s semantic field is nothing but “brainwashed” along with the infamous sheep emoji. 

Today, “brainwashed” turned into an immediately-ascribed attribute directed towards every political affiliate whose intellectual alignment with a sect of the ruling system has not ceased as a result of the 2019 uprising. In light of the protest’s slogan “All of them means All of them”, these people are now pictured as ‘old-fashioned’ due to their ‘outdated’ political belonging. 

But how much relevance is truly carried by this “brainwashed” terminology and what criteria truly establish what one conceives as good and flawless political belonging?

Frankly, “brainwashed” and “flawed belonging” are hard to define.

Not because they’re hard to visualize but because there exist endless ways of doing so. “Brainwashed” could be the case of an option-less father trapped in the cycle of financial dependence and having the fate of his entire family resting on his unconditional support for political groups, or it could merely constitute the case of psychologically-obsessed citizens who consider that stepping back from their political stance is capable of shaking their social status and dignity.

The best definition for brainwashing could be: the continuous and ceaseless exercise of a misunderstood commitment consisting of blindly inheriting ideologies. It is when values no longer constitute the bridging factor between the group and the individual and when the former’s morals no longer need to make sense for the latter’s commitment to sustain.

On the contrary, a good and flawless belonging is so much easier to define. 

For starters, a good and flawless belonging is not adhering to a new and unprecedented stream of thoughts just because they’re nothing like the old ones or lack the flaws the old ones were accused of having. A good and flawless belonging is neither subscribing to the most commonly followed doctrine gathering high popularity. Simply put, a good and flawless belonging is not how it is currently being portrayed. Being attractive and enduring a normalization process does not render a trend healthy.

Indeed, everywhere on the news and even in university lectures, political affiliation is gradually amounting to a shameful attribute as well as a trait one tends to be extremely reluctant at disclosing to others. 

Candidly, a good and flawless belong is not solely achieved by seconding “All of them means All of them” nor consenting to despise of political affiliation. It is true that October 17th allowed for a reconsideration of the eco-political Lebanese dynamics and an enlightened re-apprehension of what and how the ruler’s power shall be legitimized, but it can’t and shouldn’t be expected to abolish and criminalize the ones not exhaustively aligning with the revolution’s brought-forth ideologies. Not because they’re right, they might not be right, but for the simple reason that their political say (and vote) accounts as a power-legitimizing factor, even though partially.

Failing to acknowledge this right in addition to normalizing the day-to-day inter-individual despise will result in the tougher hatred lines established amongst Lebanese groups including the revolutionary group. For so long, Lebanon was claimed to be the land of tolerance and diversity given its 18 different sects, it’s about time for this is romanticized theme to prove its firmness by undergoing this bitter exercise of tolerance