There was a time when the term ‘Lebanonization’ indicated the worst of the worst, the absolute bottom for a country. An indication of a country’s descent into political and sectarian and confessional divisions and lawlessness and eventual civil war. The Lebanese had their ‘Lebanization’ during 1975-1990. They are still as divided as ever, if not more, but they have mostly managed to refrain from a shooting internal war. So far.

It is like the past Mafia wars: when all the Dons were of almost equal power, they started fighting in order to prevent anyone of them from gaining supremacy. Once one of them was supreme and war was hopeless, there was no incentive for an internal war among the Mafia families. A form of enforced stability prevailed. Some (not necessarily me) might say that the latter is the case now in Lebanon.

In recent years I have even read some warnings about the possible Lebanonization of Yemen. Which makes no sense now, would be laughable if it were not so tragic, but it probably made sense then to somebody. Now we know that was an optimistic warning. Given the multiple little wars in Yemen, sectarian and tribal and political and regional, it is Yemenization that can be used to refer to how far a nation can descent. Even Lebanon can face Yemenization if the political powers are not careful and if the Syrian war is allowed to spill over the border.

Now, about NATO-liberated Libya and about Syria which has not yet been liberated by the democratic freedom-loving Saudis and Emiratis and Qataris and………

Cheers

Mohammed Haider Ghuloum