by Adel Beshara
Second, Fayez contributed regular reviews and features either in anticipation of certain events or in response to sensitive situations. He was extremely efficient at composing fast responses under pressure. For example, in 1946 he managed to produce a detailed response within a few days from the release of the report by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry into conditions in Mandatory Palestine. In his response, he mercilessly berated the report’s recommendations with factual refutations. Furthermore, Fayez’s feature articles covered a wide range of issues including labor rights, independence, political freedom, concepts of reform, Communism, Zionism, and of course, nationalism. The frequency and intensity of the articles reflected the measure of his commitment to the Party.
Third, Fayez carefully avoided radical excesses and usually preferred to write in a composed and moderate tone. When a situation arose, however, he could write forcefully, which he did on several occasions. His assertiveness struck primarily and most directly in his routine “responses” to press rumors and political gossip about the Party and in his commentaries on Communism and Zionism. A case in point is the hard-hitting response Fayez wrote to a government suspension order against Sada an-Nahda on June 5, 1946, in which he berated the authorities for banning newspapers that dared to broach the issue of corruption in an attempt to deflect public attention from the corruption devouring the state.4
Fayez omitted no opportunity to strike back at the Party’s critics, even when others were present to answer back. He was always there and ready to provide vigorous refutations. His duty was to monitor the press and to correct misconceptions and falsehoods, and he certainly fulfilled this role. He spared no one. Even the “Syrian” and “Egyptian” press came under his microscopic scrutiny.
Fayez Sayegh’s supervisory management of Sada an-Nahda enabled him to maintain the public presence he had accomplished through other mediums of the Party. It gave him exposure and the perfect opportunity to parade his pen and react quickly to political events. It also afforded him a forum in which to communicate the viewpoints and beliefs of the Party without impinging on his private life. Through the paper, he could stay in touch with political realities and prove his worth to the Party. The result was a positive outcome for both himself and the Party.
2. PUBLIC SPEAKING
In addition to serving as newspaper administrator, in 1946, Fayez Sayegh served as the Party’s front man in public and ideological matters. He dominated the rostrum for the entire year with one incredible performance after another. The power of his commanding oratory came to the fore, and he tantalized audiences with his range and improvisational skills. According to those who knew him, Fayez was overly confident in his own intellectual abilities and obtained a strong sense of pleasure and satisfaction from using them. He was unquestionably aware of his oratory gift, and his unparalleled ability to connect with people was widely acknowledged.
A cursory look at Fayez’s public engagements for 1946 is enough to form an approximate picture of his dynamic personality and achievements:
This schedule lists only the lectures and addresses reported in Sada an-Nahda in 1946. It is incomplete since Fayez’s speaking roster for that year included, in addition to the above engagements, a series of talks to the Party’s student branches in Beirut and Damascus. Sada an-Nahda did not report those talks fully but made passing references to them. Collectively, the speeches reveal several striking features about Fayez: (1) he enjoyed the challenge of public speaking and gave it all the skills and oratory abilities he commanded; (2) although he spoke on a wide variety of subjects, he almost always reverted back to the National Party and spoke in the light of its ideology; (3) his speeches tended to draw large crowds and admiration to the point that political and intellectual groups beyond the Party sometimes invited him to address them on certain topics; (4) he did not mind travelling back and forth between Lebanon, Palestine, and al-Sham (Syrian Republic) to speak; and (5) he was, par excellence, the SSNP's most eminent public speaker.
As popular as he was with the audience, Fayez often invited wrath from political adversaries. The Communists were particularly menacing. They pursued him with vengeance and great eagerness in their attempts to prevent or obstruct him from talking. This speaks volumes about Fayez’s rhetorical skills and the power of his spoken word. The Communists confronted Fayez because his knowledge and insights into the Marxist/Communist system and his ability to present effective and coordinated arguments against Communist beliefs hurt them far more than the demagoguery and xenophobia of other groups. At least three times (twice in Lebanon and once in Palestine), the Communists tried to cut him off either by trying to shout him down or by engaging in scaremongering tactics. Yet Fayez remained firm and true to his cause. Despite the risk to his life, he continued to speak out against Communism and to critique its errors and adherents.
Fayez’s speaking engagements constituted yet another benchmark in his Party career. The intensity and frequency of his oratory is a testament to the steadfast zeal with which he held and defended the SSNP, and it is a reflection of his deep conviction in the aim and principles of its program. Fayez did not mince words or veil his feelings. Nor did he disguise his disdain for the Party’s political opponents. He deftly tackled controversial issues and spoke candidly and directly, aided by the sound logic and critical, realistic analysis that would become the hallmark of his entire oeuvre. Nonetheless, the SSNP is entitled to much credit for placing its entire Information apparatus at his disposal and for giving him all the support it could muster to help him develop and perfect his skills.
3. INFORMATION AND CULTURAL RESPONSIBILITIES
In addition to serving as newspaper administrator and public speaker, Fayez’s appointment as Dean of the SSNP’s Cultural and Information Departments could not have come at a more challenging time. 1946 was the year of the French evacuating from Lebanon-Syria and the beginning of political independence in both states. It was also the year of planning and preparation for parliamentary and presidential elections. Those developments, coming so close to the end of World War II, coincided with a period of great political turbulence in the region marked by the rise of Communism as a powerful and frightening ideology and by the advance of Zionism as a real force of Jewish colonialism in Palestine.
As a national movement, the SSNP had a direct stake in local and regional developments. It could not afford to look on passively while the destiny of the nation it purported to represent was being determined and shaped by forces beyond its control. Traditionally, the task of responding to fateful moments and dramatic changes was left entirely to Sa’adeh, but as he was barred from re-entering the country, it became a shared responsibility between the Party’s legislative body (the Supreme Council) and its executive body (the Deans’ Council). After the war, the greater part of that responsibility was delegated to Fayez Sayegh due to his information skills, wide knowledge and accurate, clear way of thinking. Furthermore, his proven proficiency in writing also confirmed his eligibility for the task.
Though he was only 25 years old, Fayez proved a capable and effective choice. He showed a profound awareness of ideological complexities and handled political challenges with great dexterity and nimbleness. As head of the named departments, he performed many functions and fulfilled a variety of roles both behind the scenes and publicly. In addition to his obligation as editor of Sada an-Nahda, Fayez was tasked with:
Publishing and contributing to the Party’s internal bulletin “Nashrat Imdat al-Iza’ah”.
Issuing regular guidelines to the Party branches on the conduct of indoctrination and initiation sessions.
Answering and clarifying queries received from members on ideological issues.
Organizing and speaking at Party conventions and public rallies and celebrations.
Giving press conferences, interviews, and replying to press reports about the Party when needed.
Representing the Party at general political meetings and official engagements.
Mo
reover, in 1946, Fayez produced two significant memorandums on behalf of the Party. The first, “Note on the Palestine Problem”, was written in English to convey the Party’s message quickly and accurately. It was submitted to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on March 19, 1946. The following day, Sada an-Nahda published an Arabic version of the memorandum. Upon the release of the Committee’s report at the end of April 1946, Fayez was asked to respond to its findings and recommendations. He did so with an extensive analysis. He tore into the report for its simplistic logic and blanket judgments and criticized the Committee for backing away from the hard facts to appease influential Zionists. Fayez used the occasion to call for the formation of a “United Front” and for an urgent meeting of the recently founded League of Arab States to save Palestine.
The second memorandum, addressed to the Arab League, took aim at King Abdullah’s Greater Syria Scheme. Fayez argued, somewhat carelessly, that the scheme was a British ruse to consolidate and further Britain’s imperial domination of the Near East through the agency of Emir Abdullah. He affirmed:
The Greater Syria scheme is a threat to the independence of the two states in the region it seeks to unite [namely Syria and Lebanon]. It relinquishes the territories of Cilicia and Alexandretta, consecrates sectarianism in Lebanon, and seeks to turn the country into a religious safe haven for a particular group. Conversely, it endeavors to establish a Jewish home in the heart of a dear sector, which has struggled hard to defend itself from the alien Jews. In addition to all of this, the scheme calls for a system of government that it is inimical with the foundations of modern civilization and its concepts as well as with all the values that every open-minded person cherishes.5
The Jordanian government took offense to this memorandum and issued a public statement reprimanding Fayez for attempting to vilify the scheme. Fayez countered that he could provide the documentary evidence to confirm both the memorandum and his subsequent statement to United Press. The matter ended there. In fairness, it should be said that the memorandum was written at the behest of the Party’s Supreme Council, which, having veered the Party in a Lebanonist direction in 1945, was determined to stay the course by doing whatever it took to appease the Lebanese State, whose objection to the Greater Syria Scheme was paramount.
4. MONOGRAPHS
Given the plethora of tasks he carried out simultaneously, as described above, it is quite incredible that Fayez’s writing output was so enormous. Yet this output does not represent the full magnitude of his literary oeuvre. Between 1946 and 1947, Fayez also published three monographs from a distinctly Party perspective. The first, al-Tariq or The Path, grew out of a lecture organized by the Orthodox Club in Haifa on August 17, 1946. It is essentially an odyssey into the “Path” that passionate and sincere reformers of society must conquer in their attempt to eliminate social maladies and achieve correct reforms. However, according to Fayez, not everyone qualifies for such an undertaking. The “path” is reserved for only the strongest and most determined individuals: those with the right vision and the highest standard of ethical conduct who can endure the challenge of reform and stay its full course. It is neither a utopian ideal nor an unreachable phantom, but it does pass through ranges of precipitous heights and deep gorges. There is also a logical sense of indispensability associated with the “path” arising from and justified by the need to move forward and to attain excellence. The Path captures the essence of this odyssey and reminds us how we are all connected in a common endeavor.
Fayez intended this monograph as a wake-up call for the people of Syria. It is essentially a civilized appeal to their good senses to take the “path” of genuine reform and progress without looking over their shoulders or waiting in vain. If others could do it, so could they, but they first had to master the inherent value of the “path” and learn to resist the temptations of compromise and mediocrity. The message is clear and straightforward, but its underlying theme is precisely the meaning that Sa’adeh had already imparted. On reading the monograph, Sa’adeh remarked:
The Path is a product of the school of Syrian Social Nationalist thought. It is infused with the spirit of national revival and the ideals of the ethical philosophy of our movement. Indeed, I detected a keen response in it to my call for great heroism as described in my second missive from Argentina. The Path abounds with faith, heroism, and self-confidence. It is a book for the generation of the new life – the social nationalist life – that we aim to create.6
Fayez’s second monograph, al-taifiyah or Sectarianism, 7 is considered one of the first conceptual and methodological approaches to examine, diagnose, and propose treatments for the problem of sectarianism. According to Max Weiss, in this monograph, Fayez succeeds in shifting the discourse on sectarianism from a legalistic analysis of its administration to a broader social perspective relating to Lebanese society and culture:
Echoing the historical amnesia often observed in contemporary Lebanon, Fayez argued there was no need to recount historical events contributing to the present context of Lebanese sectarianism. In his words, ‘The important thing is for us to attend the reality of [sectarianism], to be aware of its manifestations.’ Recognizing that political and social reality might be separable from the essential qualities constituting sectarianism – what might be called sectarian effects – he was more concerned with the fact that sectarianism resides in “popular life” and in the “popular consciousness” (al-nafsiyya al-sha‘biyya). The latter is both its “principal headquarters” and its “greatest danger”. If not for such a popular dimension, moreover, “the institutions focused on [sectarianism] would not have developed in the first place”. Nevertheless, according to Fayez, sectarianism resided in institutions, which “are a mirror of society, expressing the desires of its constituencies (fi’at) and embodying the different interests that play a role in its life”.8
In Sectarianism, in keeping with the Party’s secular outlook, Fayez proposed understanding the phenomenon of sectarianism as anathema to the ideal-type modern state. He argued that, through the interference of religious leaders in the affairs of state, “sectarianism strikes its final blow against the structure of the state: here sectarianism strikes with a harsh hammer the skull of the civilized state (al-dawla al-madaniyya) without mercy, here the state is subjected to powers and interests, not aiming at the highest level towards the good of society”. With the Party’s national program in mind, Fayez concluded with the ominous warning that sectarianism stands as an “obstacle” to the “progress and advancement of the nation and as a shameful stain on the forehead of its history”.9
The third monograph, al-baath al-qawmi or National Resurrection, is a collection of essays and speeches Fayez delivered between 1941 and 1946. These essays and speeches cover topics across the social, cultural, and national spectrums from the standpoint of the Party’s nationalist conception. Some were original interpretations while others were mere restatements of Sa’adeh’s already published ideas. The significance of National Resurrection derived from its ability to provide much needed explanations and helpful hints about the Party, although some members judged it as an exercise in self-promotion. Fayez’s choice of topics (nationalism, reform, Zionism, national revival, Communism) reveals that (1) Fayez took the Party very seriously and was deeply committed to everything it stood for and (2) Antun Sa’adeh acted as the single and most dominant influence on his burgeoning intellect. Fayez’s commitment to both Sa’adeh and the Party can be gauged from the positive and strong ideological orientation of this monograph and its clear advocacy for national reform.
THE CONTENT AND TRAJECTORY OF FAYEZ’S PARTY WRITINGS
Although he showed glimpses of independent thinking, Fayez stayed within the ideological perimeters established by Antun Sa’adeh. He did not attempt to question the validity and authenticity of Sa’adeh’s ideas or tamper with the broad outlines of his ideological system. To the contrary, he looked to Sa’adeh as his mentor and role model, often speaking reverently of him and
tapping into his expertise and guidance. Above all, Fayez openly admired the courage and resilience of Sa’adeh and highly appreciated his insight. In November 1946, for example, he held a large banquet at his residence to mark the tenth anniversary of Sa’adeh’s first arrest and imprisonment. The banquet, attended by the crème de la crème of Lebanon’s political and intellectual establishment, served as a sobering reminder of Sa’adeh’s bravery in the face of danger and adversity.10
The trajectory of Fayez’s writings also speaks volumes about his commitment to the Party. Beginning in 1941, he set out to develop a theoretical framework for the concept of reform stipulated in the Party’s national program. The endeavor was initiated with a lecture to the Reform Club in Beit Shabab at the end of 1941 in which Fayez identified the constituents and stages of reform as:
Awareness of the extant corruption
Defining the target
Drawing up practical plans
Implementation
For six years, Fayez wrote and spoke on the subject of reform with passion, honesty and perseverance. Under the patronage of the “national institution” (al-mu’assassa al-qawmiyah) of the SSNP, he travelled around Palestine, Lebanon, and the Syrian Republic to speak on the nature and fundamentals of reform and the Party’s program of national revival. Following his lecture at Beit Shabab, he set out to describe and analyze each constituent element individually.
