Behind the Billboard: History Revived
Karim Farah
Introductory paragraph:
The return of the LF to the Lebanese political life in 2005 was arguably done from a different perspective, on reconciliation bases. After his liberation, Samir Geagea, leader of the party, promised in his discourses a new path. In one of his speeches held in commemoration of the LF martyrs, he even went on confessing his disliked past and the one of his party to the Lebanese citizen, asking them for forgiveness. Although this shift in political understanding within the different Lebanese context, the retreat of the Syrian army and the independent Lebanon, I am going to argue that the behavior of the Lebanese Forces is still closer to the one of a faction; where in that sense it also distinguish itself from its coalition (this could be seen in their pre-election campaign, “for you the force and for the country the Forces”, that will be analyzed in part 2). Nader Moumne argues in his thesis “the emergence and transformation of the Lebanese Forces in wartime Lebanon, 1975-1988” that the distinction between party and faction is very ambiguous in Lebanon” because of the strong communal loyalties that the Lebanese people have. One of the first article that one could read at the main page of the Lebanese Forces official website, is entitled “Father Moubarak for “Al-Dyar”: the federation is the solution”. Furthermore, I am going to be analyzing the depiction of the “them and us” relation in the posters of the Lebanese forces (posters going back to 2005 till the election). Arguing that the method adopted by the Lebanese forces could be contrasted with the ones of the Lebanese civil war, knowing that both belong to different context and situation; A depiction that intensify the demarcation, to an extent where the other is portrayed as a violent aggressor and a barbaric adversary- a faceless enemy (especially in their last campaign fig.1). Such identification of local components argues Zeina Maasri in her book “Off the Wall” intensifies the “estrangement of the other”, and deepens an existing internal division. The other is portrayed as an enemy, reminding the public of previous confrontation, and fixing it in a frame of mind that goes back to the wartime period.
PART I
The emergence and formation of the Lebanese Forces
The Lebanese Forces was formed after the Tel al-Za’atar confrontation between the Palestinian resistance and diverse Christian militias. Tel al-Za’atar fell in the hands of the Christian militias on August 12th, 1976. On August 25th, 1976, Christian militias leaders where invited by Bashir Gemayel, commander of the Kataeb Security Council, and formulated a unified command structure that they named “Lebanese Forces”. The LF evolved in several phases from the time it was created 1976 till the time it was banned 1994. It witnessed “the unification of the Christian gun” on July 7th, 1980, the ascendancy of Bashir Gemayel to the presidency, 1982, and his assassination. Then the occurrence of power struggle within the LF happened between president Amin Gemayel, Hobeika and Geagea. Finally, Geagea took over after the January 15th 1986 rebellion against Hobeika, and institutionalized the Lebanese Forces. In 1994 Geagea was accused of bombing a church in Zouk, and the LF was banned.
From the time of its emergence till Samir Geagea was arrested, the LF aim was to secure the Christian region, and to protect the sovereignty of Lebanon by defending the existence of the Christian community from what it considered the other, its enemy (Palestinian resistance, and after the Arabic troops, mainly the Syrian army and their Lebanese allied). As declared Naoum Farah, the spokesman of the Lebanese Forces on July 8th, 1980, “the Christian resistance will have a unified regular army of its own to preserve the basic rights of the Christian people.”
The return of the Lebanese Forces to the political life
On July 26th, 2005, after 11 years of prison, Samir Geagea, leader of the LF, was liberated, and the LF was practically back into the Lebanese political life. It introduced itself as part of a bigger coalition formed by diverse groups representing diverse confession, knowing that LF was perceived as an isolated group. All were unified and had one similar goal for Lebanon, to get rid of the Syrian military and political presence, and its interference in the country’s business. Also, these confessional parties sheared a similar vision in which Lebanon comes first; a Lebanese nationalist approach, with a variation in positioning. Meaning, for the Christian parties in this coalition, including the LF, Lebanon comes first and last, others, such as the PSP led by Jomblat and the Future movement led by assassinated Prime Minister Hariri’s son, perceived Lebanon as a whole within a larger Arabic entity.
This sheared Lebanese discourse between the coalition of 14th of March, aiming mainly at an external enemy, shifted to the internal during the 2006 July war, where a clear demarcation was articulated between the two opposing alliances. The opposing other, led by Hezbollah, was blamed for the massive destruction that occurred during the war and the instability that the country witnessed, and was opposed by the emergence of the culture of life. The Lebanese forces took a clear stand in opposing the national parts that it held responsible. Since that, an offensive within the political discourse was launched against Hezbollah but also its allies. This was present in their discourses in the post July war period and is continuing till the election days. (This part is going to be developed by presenting analyses of official and unofficial campaigns at the election time period. Both are aimed against Aoun but tackle Hezbollah’s practices and symbols)
The “we” and “they”
The LF presence and role in relation to their imaginative Christian collectivity, is reaffirmed and consolidated by the intense opposition to the vision beheld by the other national components and their discourse. Chantal Mouffe argues in “on the political” that it is only by the demarcation of a “they” that the creation of a “we” exists. The “us” “them” relation is present within the majority of the national components, but is heavily articulated in the Lebanese Forces speeches and visual communication, till the extent were the “they” could be seen as an enemy. Mouffe continues and explains that this antagonistic relation of friend/enemy “happens when the “they” is perceived as putting into question the identity of the ”we” and as threatening its existence”. Presenting a particular identification of an identity bounded by a similar memory and geography, related to the confessional and sectarian aspect, that opposes the identified other. For instance, the confrontation on the 7th of May, 2008, is a ground for two diverging memories, one group sees it as a victory day for Lebanon, where as the other perceives it as painful and deadly to the stability of the country but more importantly an evasion of their imagined landscape, similar is the 2006 July war. In relation to the LF, the “civil strike” carried on the 24th of February 2008, by the Lebanese opposition, specifically by the Christian parties such as Aoun Tayyar and the Tayyar al-Marada led by Frengieh, is of greater relevance. This “two memories, two sorts of historical invention, two sorts of geographical imagination” argues Edward Said, in “Invention, Memory, and Place”, is what give place to “the persistence of a rich and intense conflict and the difficulty of resolving it”. Moreover, Said explains how memory and geography behold “the desire for conquest and domination”. This explains the constant reminding, of particular confrontations that happened on specific geographical zones, and behold a definite memory in relation to the identified collectivity.
PART II
The Lebanese forces visual communication during the 2005 period till the 2009 elections could be divided into two major phases.
The period that preceded the liberation of the LF leader Samir Geagea, and the party’s come back into politics 2005, till the beginning of the 2006 July war against Israel. And the period that followed the 2006 war that reconstruct particular connotation of a collective memory in a shifting context. This phase witnessed the emergence and usage of symbolic and historical visual element and slogan, that go back to the wartime, when the LF were an active militia, resisting their “enemy”. Example, the “Lebanon First” and “10452 km2”, Bashir’s famous figure wearing ray bans and the LF military costume, also the flame of belief in Lebanon that was strongly present at that time. These posters take an emotional aspect, revisiting a sheared memory and its identification within the same collectivity. Also, one video unofficially issued at the first beginning of that period, entitled “For the Martyr not to Die” by Charbel Khalil, is of major relevance and will be discussed later in this paper.
The second phase is the one that evolve around the elections, from pre-election till the elections are done. Where the country is witnessing an intense visual battle between the different parties. All along the Lebanese territories, political campaigns have filled the majority of billboards from different sizes. Some campaigns tackle the “us” aspect, pointing at the party’s program, political line, and future goals. Others tend to critique the other, “them”, by opposing a campaign to a preexisting one and/ or paralleling words (war, resistance: peace, government). The aim of all of these campaigns is in consolidating the party’s political vision and to fortify its presence, especially in the territories that concern it. Specific political campaigns for specific parties are found in specific region. The Lebanese Forces political campaign stands in particular to the rest of the parties, and that would be the main emphases in the study of the visual communication of that period. Also, an official video was produced by LF as part of their election visual campaign, titled “10452 km2: you did not give them your land don’t give them your voice”, that tackles a particular aspect of this political battle, and will be discussed for its high relevance.
First phase
Freedom and liberation:
In relation and correspondence to Samir Geagea liberation from prison after 11 years, the leader of the LF was represented standing behind the prison’s bars. Two of which are tilted in way that allow part of his upper body and one of his hand to come out, holding the torch of belief in Lebanon. The same torch was used in previous poster to the Lebanese Forces dating back to 1978-80, where combatant of the Christian resistance are depicted carrying on the Lebanese cause, and holding the flame of belief in Lebanon (see: Z.Maasri, Off the Wall, p.109). The image is complemented with a statement that portrays the injustice that the leader and his party have witnessed in the past few years, “the sunrise of Freedom”. This poster comes to reaffirm the party’s resisting past and struggle, and actual, present activeness and belief, after 11 years of political absence. It beholds an emotional memory and conscious revival of their historical symbols at the time when they where active. A shared aspect in the Lebanese forces visual communication of that period (2005-2009) and this first phase in particular, is the usage of codes that belong to a different context and presents a defined connotation to layer a suggested message. In a similar approach and context, a poster was released at the same timeframe, stating, “After 10452 days, Lebanon was freed”. Also, bringing a well known and filled with meaning expression (10452 km2) to describe and evoke a different situation. The expression, 10452 km2, which is magically linked to the hope Bashir Gemayel had brought among his community, as state Z.Maasri, is reused to promote the hope that the liberation of the Lebanese Forces leader, Samir Geagea, will bring among the ‘Lebanese’ community.
Commemorative posters and their reconstructed meaning:
A wide range of posters is found hanging in the streets of popular Christian areas, during the period that followed the 2006 July war, with a majority originating an omnipresent Bashir Gemayel. Playing on an emotional aspect, and strengthening the Christian communal nerves, these posters follow the same logic and tonality, and present a similar discourse. A Lebanese /Christian discourse that refers back to wartime period and build on its symbols and slogans. The following poster presents the figure of Bashir in his LF army dress, standing still and enclosing his arms. His posture and intense, serious facial expression express a determination of being and continuing asserted by what is written, a citation of his. This same poster could be paralleled with another one, dating from 1983, “… Continuing the procession”, where Bashir in his LF military dress is passing the rifle, with a solid and muscular hand, for another LF soldier. This other fighter has his back turned and is going out of the frame while receiving the rifle, “continuing the course of military combat to reach ‘freedom’,” as analyzed by Z.Maasri. Whereas the older one articulate concretely its goal and tool to achieve it, the more recent one has its message soften and hidden within the political rules and morals. The duality between text and image beholds a strong message, of which a wish to stay and continue, once again entailing a suppressing “other”, but more importantly a stated aim “(for us) to stay and continue”, and the mean to achieve it by resisting, fighting and sacrificing one self just as Bashir the resisting, fighter that was assassinated did.
Another, entitled “ persisting in Lebanon”, with an image of Bashir in duotone, with in intense eye expression filling the whole space, asserts their presence and existence as if, it is menaced by the “other”. The “we” might refer to the Lebanese Forces party that was banned for a long while, perceived as a trial to terminate its political role and believes. Or, a Christian audience that is familiar with this specific discourse that goes back to the confrontation with Palestinian and Arab groups. Reinforced by the image of Bashir, main leader and symbol of the Lebanese Christian resistance. This constant, stressed affirmation of their presence and continuity in Lebanon entails that they perceive it as being threatened by “they”, the others.
In commemoration of the 26th anniversary of the assassination of Bashir Gemayel, a revival of this shared memory was issued, reconstructed over a particular political message. Said observes that the collective memory is “a field of activity in which past events are selected, reconstructed, maintained, modified, and endowed with political meaning.” The poster presents a photographic profile of Bashir Gemayel surrounded with a white saintly halo. This whole depiction of Bashir links him directly to important Christian divine figures. An important person that is shielding and embracing its Christian, Lebanese people, stressed by the presence of the Lebanese flag in the background, fused with the hallowed and soften light that veils the figure. From the celestial “other” world yet present and giving hope still, to the same collective consciousness of the Christian community. This commemorating poster was mainly released in Christian inhabited areas, such as Ashrafieh, Ain El-Rummaneh and other popular regions, where “Bashir is alive within us” still. It places in doubt the known, legitimated resistance discourse, questioning it and the role of its partisans. “We are the Lebanese resistance,” it affirms, shifting this discourse from a perspective to another, and from a context to another. A resistance against whom if not Israel, going back in time 26 years, at the time where the Christian resistance was struggling against Palestinians and other groups, that it considered threatening the existence of its imagined collectivity. This difference in aim, role and enemy, contradicts Hezbollah’s and its resistance supporters, to the extent where it annuls it.
Second phase:
Pre-election visual campaign:
On the other hand, produced in a larger scale, and visible to the sight of a wider audience, are these two campaigns done in the pre-election period. The first one, launched during the 2008 summer, presents three elements. The main focus is its statement communicating the following, “you are the cedar and we are its red line”, and surrounded, each time, by the face of a different leader of the Lebanese Front (such as Bashir Gemayel, Pierre Gemayel (his father, founder and leader of the Kataeb party), Charles Malik, and Camille Chamoun), and the LF logo on the other hand. Bashir’s presence, or any of the other figures, is an emotional one that embraces the whole and reposition the actual political context, 30 years in the past. A direct response to recurrent, violent acts and armed struggles between opposing groups that occurred in the first half of the year 2008. And a strict stand, that reposition the LF in the same rank of their resisting past. The red line that symbolizing perfection and sacrifice, according to their own definition, depicts the important and sacrificial role of the LF in defending their heritage and the persistence of their imagined Christian collectivity, symbolized by the cedar. Therefore, this presence is a backup to the stated message, leading to the logo; yet has a strong impact of taking its audience back to the precedent period of war, when these Christian militias leaders were fighting against the Palestinian resistance and its Lebanese allies. These figures set a particular historical context, playing on specific shared memory to pull up the Christian nerves and to engage the collective Christian consciousness. Their faces are in black and white, with a transparent treatment, present yet in the background. They are saying, but it is more about what is said, more about the statement and its relation to the LF logo that the attentions are directed. The message is aimed at an imagined entity, the Christian collectivity, embodied by the cedar. Protected by the red line, the several dead, Christian leaders at the time of the Lebanese civil war, practically the Lebanese Forces. Furthermore, the Lebanese Forces supporters and members took part against demonstration and “civil strikes” lead by the opposition. And where a major player in the fights that took places on the streets, mainly in the Christian area. Moving on to the second campaign, done few months after towards the beginning of year 2009, the poster is once again talking to the same audience, the authentic people of Lebanon, an imagined Christian entity. A similar layout is presented; three consecutive elements are brought together to communicate a message on a white background. The cedar that was mentioned in the statement of the previous discussed campaign is visually present embracing the whole. Referring to an important role of the ‘you’, Christian partisans, in the present political situation that might be translated in the coming elections. The trunk of the cedar is the main highlighted part focusing and strengthening the idea of them, Christian collectivity, being the roots and the essence of this Lebanese heritage. The written part entails, that “for you the force” to persist and exist, “and for the country the forces” to defend its existence and continuation.
In both campaigns the Lf discourse evolve around a shared memory and within a particular fraction of the country, a Christian one. Although being part of a larger coalition, the Lf discourse in these two specific campaigns succeed in drawing a margin that divides between it and its allies, yet that is unconsciously or consciously unnoticed for particular political reasons. Other than reusing the images of dead Lebanese front leader that fought against Palestinians and leftist groups, of which a majority of Sunni and Druze peoples, practically a major part of their coalition (the Future movement/ Sunni and the PSP/ Druze). The appropriation of the cedar, symbol of the Lebanese sovereignty, referring to their Lebanon and could be interpreted as the appropriation of the Lebanese cause. Having the cedar embodying their supporter, Christian people, leaves no space to other local components, including their allies. This is visibly formulated in their statements where they exclude anyone but a Lebanese Forces, Christian public, distinguishing themselves from the 14 of March coalition. The vision of a sovereign free country and its protection is restricted to them, “you (LF supporters and Christian belonging to this imagined collectivity) are the Cedar and we (in the past the Lebanese front leaders and combatants, and in present day the Lebanese Forces) are its red line”. Similarly, “for you the force and for the country the Forces” eliminates the participation of other national and local participation, even a 14 of March one, it says specifically: for the country the LF and not 14 March. This silent separation from its coalition, and political activeness over a Christian military past, reformulate an isolated expression and behavior.
The election visual campaign:
Tackling the Lebanese forces visual campaign would allow one to understand their position and perception to other Lebanese parties that constitute an opposing political position, and believe in a different strategic vision for Lebanon. In one earlier campaign entitled “your voice changes the whole frame”, images of specific confrontation are framed within a white space. These images include respectively one of Aoun’s supporters (wearing orange) burning a wheel, and another of Hezbollah (wrapping the Shii Kouffieh around his head and neck) holding arms. Both are on the street, violently depicted, either demonstrating or fighting. These visual are engaged politically, and ideologically where the “other” is fixed as being a barbaric, violent aggressor that threatened this Christian collective consciousness. The first is burning wheels, in Christian area, and the second wearing an Islamic, Shii symbol is holding arms pointing at “us”, therefore menacing our existence.
Another campaign entitled “ you can do nothing or you could do something”, follows a similar approach where a girl and a guy turning their backs to the viewer are watching respectively an armed struggle scene that refers to the 7th of May events, and scene of complete destruction that might refer to the mass destruction that occurred during the 06 July war. In both events, Hezbollah was held responsible this also included his allies. Again the “other” is held responsible of violence and destruction leading to instability and damages.
Both campaigns fixe a particular image of the other local components that includes a feel of fear and oppression, pressing on a reciprocal opposing reaction that would change this reality, by electing the LF.
In continuation to this political orientation, a campaign opposing the Lebanese flag to another one with clear Hezbollah features was initiated. The aim of this is to generate animosity towards Hezbollah and make the claim that they want to change everything about Lebanon, to the dramatically satirical extreme of changing the flag. They are portraying a faceless enemy who constitutes a threat to an imagined identity.
Conclusion:
The point here is that the Lebanese forces, in their visual communication, whether official or otherwise, always bring back elements of their ideological history, and the causes that they resisted at different points in time. They employ these codes in contemporary campaigns and political situations that re-contextualize the ideology and reinterpret the situation at hand accordingly, and the collective memory of those concerned. This creates a link between the past concerns of their public and the contemporary agenda of the party itself.
Bibliography:
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1991).
Mouffe, Chantal. On the Political (London: Routledge, 2005).
Said, Edward. Invention, Memory, and Place.
Barthes, Roland. Images Music Text, trans. Stephen Heath (London: Fontana Press, 1977).
Maasri, Zeina. Off the Wall. (I.B.Tauris, 2009)
Moumne, Nader. The Emergence and tranformation of the Lebanese forces in Wartime Lebanon. American university of Beirut (1996).
Khazen, Farid el-. Political parties in postwar Lebanon: parties in search of partisans, Middle East Journal lvii (Autumn 2003).
Snider, Lewis. The Lebanese Forces: their origins and role in Lebanon’s politics, Middle East Journal xxxviii (winter 1984), pp. 1-33.
http://www.lebanese-forces.org/articles_geagea.shtml
http://www.lebaneseforces.com/lflogo.asp.html
