Why failed the “uprising of the hungry” in Lebanon?

Three successive uprisings against the Lebanese in a period not exceeding seventeen years, since the “Cedar Revolution” broke out after the assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005, then the “October Movement” in October 2019, and finally, the “revolution of the hungry” that began this month in “two Anger »past. But what brings together all these phenomena that are successive at converging distances, and what distinguishes each of them?
The “Cedar Revolution” in 2005 was sovereign par excellence. It was led by the Lebanese opposition parties, with two million demonstrations, of which a little less, and led to the withdrawal of the Syrian tutelage from Lebanon.
As for the “October Revolution” in 2019, it is as if in their new generations, the generations of social media, that took a counter-course to the symbols of the first uprising, rather as a youth coup against the past sovereign class that ruled Lebanon and brought it to a kind of general ruin, represented by a corrupt system. The uprising wanted her to be overthrown by her court and her judiciary, “Everyone means everyone.” Indeed, this uprising marked a radical departure for the new generation of sectarian equations and sectarian quotas. It is the youth’s revolution against the parties. Indeed, let us say the participants in it have turned against their fathers who “made wars and destroyed the country” and stole its goods and tampered with its components: the revolution of children against the fathers. Distinguished by trying to present a “new” image of Lebanon, as equivalent to those well-known stereotypes, as it gathered protesters from all classes, the poor, the educated, the bourgeoisie, the rural, the urban … and it managed to mobilize millions of gatherings, perhaps exceeding the numbers of the “Cedar Revolution.” But it is the generation of the Internet, Facebook and WhatsApp, that is, a “practical” generation that is not theoretical, dynamic and not intellectually or politically crystallized, and that is why they were unable to form priorities for their demands, and an effective diverse identity for their tendencies; Sometimes they want to bring down the regime, at other times they want to bring down the system, or dissolve the parliament, or form a government other than the ruling party … etc. Rather, they were not able to form a unified leadership .. so they fell into chaos, contradiction and loss, which affected their activities and movements, and then diminished, then as if its page had collapsed.
As for the last movement, it started at the beginning of this March with the slogan “Monday of anger”, as a result of the country, state and people reaching bankruptcy, as the price of the dollar rose to ten thousand pounds, which means a collapse of the ability of people to secure a minimum of living, especially after reaching the limit. The minimum wage is seventy dollars per person per month. It is the revolution of the hungry par excellence. The Lebanese TV screens were filled with misery, their cries and cries: “We do not have the right to a kilo of bread,” “What is with us is the right to medicine.” These are painful and sad moments for a people who finally knew that they had lost everything.
But this movement recorded a strange paradox: If the previous two uprisings, both the sovereign and the social, had drawn millions, then the “anger of the hungry” did not attract people to the street, so the numbers were shy, modest, and meager, so he compensated some of the demonstrators by cutting roads and burning rubber wheels.
The question is: Why is this public reluctance to take to the streets, despite the wounds of poverty and the calamities that have affected everyone? Do people despair of these forms of objections? Is it the Corona epidemic, isolating them in their places? Did they lose hope for themselves and others? Did despair lead them to their bitter isolation? And is the recent uprising in a dying country, not a certain, collapsing, and no one responding, controlled by party groups that have bankrupted a nation, and an armed party that controls all the joints of the state, all borders, and all the actual powers?
See it the conclusion?
I do not think so, what began has begun .. and will not end.
Because what is to come may be the greatest!
Because what is to come may be Hell itself!

* Lebanese writer