The issue is not as simple as it seems. In its current form it relates to the political order in which we live. Therefore, we have to take it out from its simplicity and try to use it within the context of the society we are part of. This would men the civic rights of the individual in the society. Since this individual is a working member of the society he lives in. In a democratic system such as the one that we are told we live in this part of the world, there is this sacred rule that an individual can believe in what he wants and he can tell and persuade his friends to believe in the same. Moreover, he has the right to speak out about his beliefs and to meet with others and discuss those beliefs. He even has the right to think about what kind of government suits him best and to dispense their ideas among others. This will allow the people to be exposed to different ideas regarding an issue. The people will then choose which suits them best and bring those people to government whom they think are the best to implement their beliefs. If those who are elected try to change this democratic process for their own ends will become tyrants. Is this what His Beatitude wants us to advocate when he says:
“But it (the government) is free to struggle against political ideologies…and anything else that it sees as endangering the people.”
This is a very dangerous statement. Because it advocates that the rulers have free hand to fight against those political systems that it despises. Pay special attention to the segment:
“…and anything else that it sees as endangering the people.”
From where would a normal government, which was elected just to comply with the system and to deal with normal issues, find the righteous wisdom through which it would know which political ideologies to fight and which to struggle against? From where does this higher authority come from which would supply a government with a vision to see what is good and what is bad for the people? After all, this government was not even elected by the people in order for it to muster absolute power. If you ask the government what it does, will it answer you with His Beatitude's big words, such as how can I saw in this a danger to the people and I saw in that a benefit for it? After deciding on such a dangerous course and such a dangerous role for the government how does His Beatitude imagine that he would criticize the government for its actions, since it acted as it saw fit?
It might be that a people would give such absolute power to a government to do what it sees fit regarding problems. However, such a government can act as such only if it has the absolute confidence of the people that elected it in the first place. Absolute power can only exist when there is such absolute confidence. But to give absolute power to a government that was elected with no popular confidence would only take us back to slavery and the dark Ages.
Does His Beatitude want to punish SSNP members, who are extremely confident that what they are doing is for the betterment and advancement of all the Lebanese, for their ideology and for their right to think the way they think?
Does His Beatitude want to give a government that was elected for a definite term the right to monopolize thinking and ideology in the state? Does he want to forbid members of the state from generating wonderful and brilliant ideas that such a government is not a match for in the first place? Does His Beatitude want the government to be able to shut down the creative thinking of the people? What would be the destiny of such a state that forbids its citizens from coming up with good ideas? Did His Beatitude think about these questions when he declared what he declared in his speech?
As to what regards his saying that “…a human being can't distribute decadent principles that hurt others,” is something that takes us out of the realm of the political system and into the open world. Thus, in a state there are no “others” accepts by their right and personal conditions. As to what concerns civic and political rights there is only the people, the totality of which constitutes the nation, and a government's task is to look after its prosperity, security, and well being, before the security of the “other” individuals.
We consider this discussion as enough regarding the subject. We don't need to delve into the philosophy of jurisprudence and its historical development. I would dare to say, however, that we were almost going to delve into that because of the irresponsible words of His Beatitude.
