Nothing is more dangerous to a state than a temporary economic crisis-except the moment when the rule of law ceases to function as a binding authority and becomes a selective, negotiable concept. When truth is replaced by slander, accountability by defamation, and institutions by noise, the damage extends far beyond balance sheets and market confidence. At that point, the very idea of the state begins to unravel. What Lebanon is experiencing today is not a media dispute, a personal controversy, or an isolated failure of governance. It is a decisive test of whether the rule of law still exists as a living principle or has collapsed into symbolism.

Lebanon’s crisis has often been framed in economic terms: currency collapse, banking paralysis, capital flight, and shrinking investment. These realities are severe, but they are symptoms rather than causes. Economies do not collapse in isolation. They fail when legal protection evaporates, institutions lose authority, and accountability is replaced by impunity. In such environments, capital does not merely withdraw-it refuses to arrive. Trust does not erode gradually; it breaks decisively.

For those who invested in Lebanon not as a speculative venture but as a long-term commitment, the current moment represents a profound rupture. Investment, at its core, is not transactional. It is a partnership premised on mutual obligations: capital, employment, risk-sharing, and, above all, legal protection. When investors remain during periods of instability, absorb losses, preserve jobs, and continue operations despite adverse conditions, they are not exploiting weakness-they are expressing confidence in a state’s future capacity to recover. That confidence, however, is not infinite.

Lebanon today has crossed a critical threshold. What was once a challenging investment climate has become an environment of legal exposure. Individuals and institutions-whether investors, employers, or public figures-are subjected to orchestrated campaigns of defamation, false accusations, and media attacks conducted without evidence, due process, or consequence. This is not criticism. It is not investigative journalism. It is a breakdown of standards that transforms the public sphere into an open arena where reputations are assaulted without restraint and where the law remains conspicuously absent.

No state can credibly invite investment while abandoning the defense of basic rights. Legal protection is not a privilege granted at the discretion of power; it is the first pillar of trust. When defamation goes unchecked and judicial authorities remain silent, the message is unmistakable: protection is uncertain, accountability is selective, and exposure is total. In such conditions, dignity becomes negotiable and silence is mistaken for wisdom. In reality, silence in the face of defamation is not prudence-it is encouragement.

The role of the media is central to this crisis. In any functioning democracy, the media serves as a watchdog: questioning authority, exposing wrongdoing, and informing the public with rigor and responsibility. But the media is not a court of law. Defamation is not opinion, and false reporting is not freedom of expression. Constructive criticism is legitimate; offering advice is a civic duty. Insult, baseless accusation, and systematic incitement, however, are acts punishable by law in any state that respects itself.

It is essential to distinguish between professional journalism and paid distortion. Lebanon still possesses national, principled media institutions that uphold ethical standards and contribute positively to public discourse. These voices deserve respect and protection. What is at issue is a segment of media that has deliberately chosen to function as an instrument of slander rather than a platform for truth. The tolerance of such conduct is not neutrality. It is institutional failure.

The consequences of this failure extend beyond individuals and companies. They have expanded to include attacks on Gulf states and their leaderships-conduct that violates sovereignty, dignity, and established political norms. Allowing media platforms to become venues for insulting states and leaders does not merely damage historic relationships; it constitutes a serious legal and diplomatic offense. International relations cannot be safeguarded by rhetoric alone. They require enforceable limits and a state capable of imposing them.

Lebanese law itself is unambiguous on this matter. Insults against a sister state or its leadership are criminalized, and judicial authorities are obligated to act ex officio, without waiting for a complaint. The failure to enforce these provisions does not reflect legal ambiguity; it reflects paralysis. When the Public Prosecution does not act where the law mandates action, the result is not freedom-it is impunity.

Official silence in such cases cannot be interpreted as restraint. It is perceived as weakness. It signals that there are no red lines, no deterrence, and no authority capable of enforcing the law. This perception is devastating for a country whose economic survival depends on regional trust, diaspora engagement, and international cooperation.

At its core, what Lebanon is experiencing is an institutional collapse. The state is absent where it must be present. Institutions are paralyzed when action is required. The law is invoked selectively, suspended opportunistically, and ignored when enforcement is politically inconvenient. Calls for decisive intervention by the highest executive authorities have produced no meaningful response-no corrective measures, not even symbolic steps to restore minimum authority. This inertia is itself a form of governance failure.

One principle must be reaffirmed without ambiguity: the application of the law is not optional. It is not subject to public mood, political alignment, or media pressure. The law must apply to all or it applies to none. When enforcement becomes selective, legality loses legitimacy, and the state forfeits its moral authority.

This assessment is not merely personal or anecdotal. International institutions have reached the same conclusion. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and poverty has explicitly identified impunity and corruption as deeply entrenched within Lebanon’s political and economic system, describing the absence of accountability as a central cause of institutional failure. The UN has repeatedly emphasized that the rule of law is the foundation of peace, stability, and economic progress. Its absence invites abuse, accelerates collapse, and entrenches inequality.

Political philosophy reached this conclusion centuries ago. Montesquieu stated with enduring clarity that there is no liberty if the law is not above all, and no state without an independent judiciary. These are not abstract ideals; they are operational requirements for any society that seeks stability and prosperity.

The most dangerous consequence of Lebanon’s current trajectory is not the loss of investment alone. It is the threat posed to the interests of millions of Lebanese whose livelihoods depend on regional stability-particularly the more than two million Lebanese living and working in Gulf countries, as well as those inside Lebanon whose economic survival is tied to remittances and cross-border relations. When the state fails to protect dignity and legality at home, it jeopardizes the standing of its people abroad.

No investor, partner, or visitor will return to an environment where exposure is absolute and protection is illusory. The problem is not the Lebanese people, whose resilience and talent are undeniable. It is a system that consumes trust through corruption, indifference, and the normalization of lawlessness.

When investors feel unprotected and targeted by unchecked media campaigns, the message is clear: there is no state, no law, and no safety. Without dignity, there is no investment. Without law, there is no economy. Without institutions that protect people rather than slogans, there is no state.

Every defamation campaign left unpunished further erodes what remains of Lebanon’s credibility. Every instance of unchecked slander drives another nail into the coffin of statehood. Lebanon deserves better. It deserves a state that acts, not one that observes. It deserves a law that is applied, not exploited.

This is not the voice of abandonment, but of commitment. It is the position of those who remained when departure was easier, who absorbed losses to protect livelihoods, and who continue to believe that Lebanon can recover-if, and only if, the rule of law is restored as the supreme authority. A state that does not protect the law cannot ask for trust.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel

The post Lebanon when the rule of law falls: From state to open arena appeared first on BLiTZ.

[Read More]

—–
Source: Weekly Blitz :: Writings