Will We Have Elections Next Year?

So March 14, after a long meeting yesterday, declared a set of principles that will likely govern their policy in the coming days. Among them were many significant statements about the importance of civil peace and coexistence, and about the need to eliminate the different paranoia each community suffers from. But it wouldn't be fun to focus on the stuff I agree with, instead I'd rather focus on those principles I have a problem with, namely:

• "Any solution to the current crisis should lead to eliminating Hezbollah's arms from the internal equation."
• "Resorting to parliamentary elections in order to decide controversial issues is difficult given the possession of weapons by one team and not the other, and in light of the experience of previous elections in which the losing team refused to acknowledge the results by virtue of its arms. "
  (Source (in Arabic): Naharnet)

These principles scare me. Not because they're faulty, but because they're dangerous. I do believe, like any March 14 supporter, that Hezbollah needs to let go of its weapons. I also believe, like any Hezbollah supporter, that now is not the time. I agree with March 14 that we need a strong corruption-free state that has a monopoly on executive, legislative, judiciary and military powers. But I also believe that a strong state is a prerequisite (or at least a co-requisite) of the disarmament of Hezbollah and not the other way around.

The main reason why these principles scare me is that we seem to be headed to a new crisis, one in which parliamentary elections are delayed until an agreement is reached on the status of Hezbollah's weapons. And if our politicians can't agree on the supposedly simple matter of writing the government platform and barring any sudden changes in the regional and international arena, how exactly are they going to settle the matter of Hezbollah's weapons?

There is also a logical flaw in the March 14 principles: Given their assumptions and their stated objectives, their principles lead to a contradiction. In particular:

• Their assumption that Hezbollah could use its weapons in order to prevent election results that are favorable to its opponents.
• Their objective of building a strong independent peaceful and economically viable state.
• Their principle that Hezbollah needs to be disarmed before parliamentary elections.

Here's why these don't fit: according to the assumption, Hezbollah will indeed use its arms to prevent losing in parliamentary elections. But surely that means they will also use their arms to prevent their disarmament (an assumption Nasrallah himself admits - Video 7:46 (in arabic))? And in that case, if March 14's assumption is true and they stick to their principles, then they are leading us straight into one of two options: a devastating civil and regional war aimed at disarming Hezbollah by force or an indefinite halt to our most basic constitutional institution, the parliament. Both of these outcomes seem to contradict March 14's stated objective. QED.