The journey to building a nation of independence is not a simple one. It demands not only political autonomy but also economic resilience, social unity, and a forward-thinking vision. Independence is not merely the absence of foreign control; it is the establishment of a self-sustaining system capable of standing firm on the global stage. For any country emerging from a history of colonization or external dominance, the process of nation-building is both a challenge and an opportunity; a chance to redefine identity and take ownership of the future.

The foundation of a truly independent nation requires more than just the signing of treaties or the formation of governments. It requires the cultivation of institutions that serve the people, the creation of economic policies that foster growth, and the building of a national culture that respects diversity while uniting all citizens in a common cause. These are the pillars upon which the structure of independence must rest.

Independence is not just a political statement; it is a continuous process. It is about ensuring that sovereignty is reflected in every aspect of life: in the economy, in education, in the rule of law, and in the daily lives of citizens. Only when a nation achieves independence in all of these areas can it truly call itself free.

Lessons from the “Chehabist Era”

Undoubtedly, the era known as the “Chehabist period” (President Fouad Chehab mandate 1958-1964) was a decisive moment in the historical trajectory of Lebanon as a nation-state. President Fouad Chehab understood that Lebanon could not progress and evolve into a stable and sovereign state without overcoming the internal divisions that had long torn it apart, especially the lack of social justice in both its geographical and popular dimensions. As a result, much of his tenure was focused on addressing social issues. While the efforts of the Chehabist period to rectify the shortcomings of the Lebanese political system did not yield the expected results, this failure can be attributed to the “setbacks” faced by the Chehab era, external factors, and inherent flaws within the structure of Lebanon’s political system.

This “Lebanon,” which has always been a harmonious blend of civilizations since its inception, remains bound by the need for consensus among all of its components. And it is the head of the state, the President of the Republic, who is called upon to lead this delicate process. The President’s powers, as outlined in the National Accord Document and the Taif Agreement, were never diminished. The President alone has the potential to provide the dynamic energy Lebanon needs, a country in constant flux. This dynamic role can often make the president the “greatest threat”, in a positive sense, to Lebanon’s fragile political balance. Whether before or after the Taif Agreement, a president’s ability to succeed depends largely on their unifying personality, popularity, their ability to rise above sectarian divisions, and their role as the head of the entire nation and all its institutions, powers, and people, remaining strictly loyal to the constitution.

When the National Accord Document (Taif Agreement) elevated the role of the President beyond merely constitutional powers, it also placed upon the President a new responsibility: the moral leadership of the nation, a duty to protect constitutional principles, and the role of being the constitutional guardian. The President became a “de facto” constitutional watchdog, reviewing every law, decree, and policy. This elevated position allows the President not only to oversee the workings of the state, but also to safeguard the very legal foundation on which Lebanon stands.

The President’s mission, therefore, must be singular: to “build the state of independence” in every sense of the word. This idea was clearly articulated by President Fouad Chehab during the Independence Day speech of 1960. In his closing remarks, he addressed the Lebanese people saying: “On this anniversary of independence, it is said that independence is something that is taken, not given. But what I see, after all of Lebanon’s experiences, is that true independence is neither taken nor given; it is built! My fellow Lebanese, there is no distinction or privilege in being Lebanese. A Lebanese is only distinguished by honest work. Let your love for Lebanon, your loyalty to it, and your dedication to its independence, be measured by your actions, actions that never tire. Your independence is the work of each one of you, and it is a daily task.”

President Chehab believed that independence is not a one-time achievement but a continuous process, a collective effort by every citizen. It is built every day by every Lebanese, whether in the public or private sector, at home, at work, in schools, and in universities. He called on the Lebanese to “recognize the state,” urging them to understand that Lebanon was entering a new phase, one of building a solid foundation based on freedom, justice, and knowledge—principles that would guarantee the rights of each citizen, including the right to a dignified life, and the obligation of loyalty to the state.

The pillars of the state, according to Chehab, are freedom, justice, and knowledge, along with mutual obligations between citizens and the state. Knowledge of deficiencies and the will to address them is only the first half of the equation; the second half is serious, collaborative, and dedicated work. “Let us not stop halfway,” Chehab urged.

When we look at today’s Lebanon, we cannot help but notice the eerie similarity between the challenges of today and those of the past. The fundamental question for today’s political class is whether they are serving the people or merely their own followers and clientele. What is required today is the full implementation of the laws; the fact remains that no law is applied consistently or without deviation. There are significant deviations in many constitutional matters that require no great legal expertise to identify. For example, the principle of government formation, which has become a miniature version of parliament, is compromised by sectarianism. Likewise, the principles of voting within the Cabinet and the mechanism for forming governments have been undermined by sectarian demands.

Lebanon’s governance, throughout its modern history, has always been marred by political arguments, with politicians blaming the Taif Agreement, the constitution, or the sectarian formula. What set President Chehab apart in his governance was his unwavering commitment to implementing the law and always returning to the constitution (the “book”) as he called it.

A pluralistic parliamentary system like Lebanon’s inevitably faces the challenge of authority when legitimacy is weak and when there is a departure from constitutional principles. As President Chehab stated, “The constitution is the ultimate reference.” The continuity and resilience of the state depend on the principle of the rule of law and the “statehood” of Lebanon’s political culture.

The only guarantee for the future of Lebanon and its citizens is the recognition that the constitution is the supreme authority in every matter related to the public interest.

As we reflect on today’s challenges, we must remember President Chehab’s message: Lebanon’s future lies in our collective commitment to building an independent state, one where the constitution is the foundation and guide for all actions. We must once again embrace the power of “the book” and ensure that it governs every decision, as we work toward the ultimate goal: a truly sovereign, just, and united Lebanon.