It was hard not to draw what are probably unfair conclusions at the fact that the Progressive Socialist Party held its General Assembly at Beirut’s Beaurivage Hotel, a premises that for so long doubled-up as a barracks for senior Syrian intelligence officers during what Walid Jumblatt, the PSP’s leader, is now referring to as that country’s ‘mandate’ over Lebanon. So now, 29 years of often brutal occupation is being described as a period of “mandate,” a word that is loaded with connotations of benign governance. What’s more, we hear that Jumblatt is to meet with Assaad Hardane, the leader of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, an organization whose fighters were at the vanguard of that “mandate,” as well as the May 7, 2008 unrest. 
 
Shifting tides indeed. But then again, Jumblatt has a habit of sailing into some very curious waters so as to keep an even keel on his political future. His call for a return to the party’s socialist principals, a rejection of US influence in the region and once again prioritizing the liberation of Palestine is surprising but not shocking. Last month, we caught a whiff of the mothballs as he dusted off his leftist credentials by rejecting privatization. It was, we now know, the opening salvo in what is shaping into a summer power game.
 
Jumblatt said he wants to “get rid of biases,” that the “elections resulted in sectarian alliances that should be eliminated.” What is breathtaking is his nerve. Should we not remind Jumblatt that ‘sectarian alliances’ have shaped our politics for over a century? Quite simply, the Druze leader knows that without his bloc March 14 does not have a majority, and this is his way of reminding them that they need him to form a government and that he can force a commanding role in shaping future policy. 
 
But arguably the saddest part of this saga is that the credentials of those who led the Independence Intifada have become further tarnished by such squabbles. Many of those who believed in a free and sovereign Lebanon, and who took to the streets on March 14, 2005, but who now feel subsequently betrayed by the leaders under whose name they marched, will cite Jumblatt’s posturing as further evidence of March 14’s betrayal.
 
That would be a kind assessment. Many will go further and draw the not unreasonable conclusion that Jumblatt, one of the pillars of the Cedar Revolution, is resorting to blackmail to make himself relevant. Does Jumblatt forget that for three years he lived under a death sentence, while Lebanon shuddered with bombs and instability? Does he forget that during those three years he saw eight politicians and two national servants murdered by the same killers who would have happily dispatched him too? In many ways, after Hariri, he was the prize scalp, and yet he bore the threat of assassination with admirable stoicism and railed against Damascus with what we thought was often reckless bravery.
 
The cabinet selection has already taken too long and Jumblatt’s bombshell has thrown the process into disarray. Already there is talk of resorting to the emergency measure known as a “cabinet of technocrats.” But Jumblatt is not only risking nullifying March 14’s victory in the June 7 polls, he is arguably destroying what is left of the idea of March 14, 2005.