From the Legacy of Hoyek to the State Project... Will the Maronite Leaders Unite?

The scene of the Maronite leaders' meeting in Diman to participate in honoring the Blessed Patriarch Elias Hoyek was not merely a church occasion or a historical celebration, but carried within it political and national dimensions that go beyond the framework of the occasion itself. For Hoyek was not only a religious figure, but was one of the most prominent founding fathers of the idea of Greater Lebanon, and a visionary who built on a state of institutions, coexistence, and openness to the world.

Today, amid the collapse that has afflicted state institutions, Diman seems to be invoking Hoyek's legacy to pose a fundamental question: "Can the Maronite leaders move from the image of unity to a national project that unites the Lebanese around the state?"

The Christian street, as well as the Lebanese in general, has suffered for long years from political divisions that have been reflected in the weakness of state institutions and the disruption of constitutional entitlements. Therefore, the mere meeting of Christian leaders in the patriarchal seat carries a message that there are common denominators still capable of bringing them together, foremost among them protecting the Lebanese entity.

But the real challenge is not in taking the picture, but in translating it into a clear political position, whose title is rallying around the state project and supporting the presidency in the path of restoring institutions. President Joseph Aoun is today leading a delicate phase whose title is rebuilding trust in the state, consolidating its sovereignty, restricting the decision of war and peace to legitimate institutions, along with launching the reform path and restoring Lebanon's Arab and international relations.

The success of this project needs broad national cover, and it begins from the Christian political environment that has historically been linked to the idea of the Lebanese state. If the leaders gathered in Diman can agree that the establishment of the state takes precedence over all partisan and electoral calculations, then they will have revived part of Hoyek's message, not merely commemorated him.

It is no secret that Bkerke and Diman have always been pivotal stations in Lebanon's history, as major national initiatives were launched from them at critical stages. Hence, the public will await whether this meeting will remain within the framework of symbolism, or will it be the beginning of a political understanding that places the interest of the state above factional interests.

The Blessed Hoyek did not struggle for a weak state or a hostage to axes, but for a sovereign, free homeland capable of protecting all its children. This legacy imposes on the leaders who gathered under the roof of Diman a historical responsibility to support every step that strengthens the authority of the state, and to back the presidency in completing the project of restoring sovereignty, reform, and institution-building.

The Diman meeting alone may not be sufficient to unite the Christian ranks, but it can, if the political will is available, form a launching point towards a new national understanding. For Lebanon today does not need temporary alliances as much as it needs a consensus around the state, and a conviction that the future of the Lebanese can only be built through strong institutions, a respected constitution, and a presidency that enjoys the support of political forces in the battle to rebuild the nation.