Opinion Analysis by Gaelle Nohra, Staff Writer

November 17th, 2020

With university elections striking national affairs these two weeks, it has certainly come to your attention the rise in the number of independently running students whose main campaigning slogan consists of them not being affiliated with any political party or political club active within their respective university. That said, “non-politically affiliated” has transcended the slogan level and now constitutes not just an eligibility criterion, but a privilege header on the candidate’s profile and whose absence might be perceived as a black point on their record. 

Among the several questions that have been advanced to these candidates was ‘how are you running today with an independent entity while, just yesterday, you were contentedly exhibiting your commitment to another affiliated one?’ and major answers were that October 17, August 4th, along with the suffocating economic crisis were plain enough to alter the entire equation and adjust the political stance of any Lebanese. 

Affiliations and sect-belonging used to consist, at least in a higher manner, an integral part of the Lebanese Identity as they were automatically revealed through basic questions such as ones relating to the place of birth. Hence, the above argument suggesting that recent Lebanese occurrences were game changers indeed stands in line with the core apprehensions brought to the table by October 17. It wasn’t a revolution because it awakened and fed the sense of patriotism but because it comprised a tough and unprecedented detachment of what, sadly so, has long been a survival pillar to the livelihoods of the many: political belonging.    

Nevertheless, the recent waves of despise directed towards political affiliation and even post-August 4th, are subject to controversy. First and foremost, no clear terms managed to label what non-independence truly means. Is it disharmony with secularism and secular entities or is it the mere claim of envisioning the fight of corruption? Is it an Instagram follow for a political leader or is it refraining from cutting the bonds with a friend whom you know has immutable political beliefs? Multifarious definitions can be attributed to the non-independence terminology, yet self-governance alone should frame what independence is. 

Independence isn’t letting go of what used to be nor is it rejecting the political facet that was engraved, decades ago, in the Lebanese identity. Independence isn’t the crystal new where you should be cancelling out your diverging thoughts in order to match the mindset of a specific group just so that you acquire the ‘independent’ label. According to Fred I. Greenstein “Even if the personality composition of any group is randomly determined, random assortment would not in fact guarantee the same personality composition in the membership of all institutions of a given type”. [i]In simpler terms, even if you engage in a group with whom you believe you have an outstanding alignment of beliefs, this doesn’t erase your uniqueness encompassing all your beliefs and values.

If independence genuinely entails complete segregation from the ideological stream that one group has one day chosen to follow, how come independent groups exist and how come a bunch of individuals can together decide to be independent? The main point behind this question isn’t to assess the quality of the outcomes that might arise when independent groups arise as much as to stress that entity belonging is never bias-free. 

Take family for instance. You will always advise and offer constructive criticism to your brother or sister whenever you catch them in a mistake. You will do so time and time again, but in most of the cases, you will never do so publicly and you won’t be able to openly express your objectivity on the matter due to the inherent affection you have towards your family and the significant care you have about their reputation. 

If that biasness could be extended to social groups, then these groups can never claim independence because what makes group membership other than intellectual commitment? If in contrast, this partiality fails to hold and individuals are loyal towards their personal beliefs, then group is not the right nor the relevant description. 

All that said, belonging to an ‘independent’ group is nothing but affiliation, the same exact word used to depict the flaws existing within political entities. But in fact, it isn’t affiliation that should assess the genuineness of candidates’ platform, it is rather their attitude towards it.

[i] Fred Greestein, Personality and Politics: Problems of evidence, Inference and Conceptualization. November 1st 1967. P.35. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276426701100203