Lucien Bourjeily is a Lebanese director and writer of theater and film, and a political activist. His plays often center around political issues such as corruption and censorship. Bourjeily was a leading figure in national protest movements during the past decade, as well as a candidate in Lebanon’s two most recent parliamentary elections, running on independent lists. Both his art and activism have led to run-ins with the security forces, as his past plays have either been banned or there have been attempts to censor them, while his participation in anti-government protests led to his detention. His most recent play, which ran over the course of the past year, was an Arabic-language adaptation of Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People.” Diwan interviewed Bourjeily to get his insights into how the play applies to Lebanon today.
Houshig Kaymakamian: What is “An Enemy of the People” about?
Lucien Bourjeily: The play is about Dr. Stockmann, who discovers that the water being used in his village spa, which attracts tourism, contributes significantly to the local economy, and is marketed as water that can cure diseases, is actually contaminated with a deadly disease. Dr. Stockmann thinks that this discovery (backed by scientific evidence) will be met with support by the people in the village, because he is saving their lives. Unfortunately, he is confronted by his brother—the mayor of the town and head of the spa project—who does not want to admit that the project was built in the wrong location and that all the consequent health issues that might arise were not considered. So, the mayor spreads rumors about the doctor’s intentions, as if his intervention is personal and not for the benefit of the town. He even enlists the press to spread lies, and informs people how closing or repairing the spa would cause financial ruin for the town. As a result, he turns the people against Dr. Stockmann, who becomes the antagonist. The boiling point is reached when the townspeople confront Dr. Stockmann during a town hall meeting and declare him to be an enemy of the people. In the end he has to decide if he is going to stay and continue the fight or leave the town. He decides to stay and fight.
HK: Did Dr. Stockmann’s idealism work to his detriment?
LB: Any interesting character in theater or film is flawed. Otherwise, they wouldn’t feel real and people wouldn’t connect with the story. Dr. Stockmann has flaws, including his idealism. He thought everybody would think about their health first and financial gain second. His idealism made him blind to the fact that what he was doing might not be well received by everyone. He didn’t take this into consideration while trying to achieve his objective, which is to make people understand the gravity of the situation and act against it. So, in the end, he turned the people against him, even though their interest was in supporting him. He didn’t play his hand well. He’s also a scientist more than he is a politician—not very diplomatic or eloquent and unfortunately not the best person to fight for his idea. His brother however, who is the head of the municipality, is well-spoken and was able to convince people of Dr. Stockmann’s lies, turning the entire town against him.
HK: Would you say the idealism exhibited by Dr. Stockmann resembles that of some of the independent parliamentarians currently in the Lebanese parliament?
LB: I would even compare this kind of idealism with people who boycotted the parliamentary elections, not just the candidates. If you want to be idealistic when it comes to politics in Lebanon, then boycott the whole electoral process. You shouldn’t even participate in elections, because doing so is kind of a compromise. Once people are inside parliament, they aren’t idealists anymore. Once you’re in, you’re not Dr. Stockmann, who wouldn’t have participated in parliamentary elections. He would have felt that he had to bring down the whole system, not lend it legitimacy by playing a game he knew was rigged. Among the [independent] parliamentarians, there are those who have not only made compromises, but who have even voted for presidential candidates put forward by regime parties, thereby switching sides. They are perpetuating the system and not even trying to fight it from the inside.
HK: What does fighting from the inside look like?
LB: It means that because you are a parliamentarian, your voice can be heard by more people and you can use your platform to discuss the radical change you want—meaning changing the whole regime and writing a new constitution, among other things. You are someone to whom people will listen, or can hear, because you are inside. Once you are inside, you represent a certain constituency, enjoy legitimacy from elections … or else what would you be doing?
HK: Is idealism possible in the present parliament?
LB: Being idealistic is actually being practical, because everything else is dreams and slogans that will never go anywhere. My definition of practical is not shooting yourself in the foot. Parliamentarians should not, for the sake of “practicality,” vote for a program different than the one for which people elected them and that is totally different from what they believe in. Why are people voting independent if they want their representatives to ultimately vote for one of two presidential candidates presented [by regime parties]. Being “realistic” means committing political suicide.
HK: As a former independent candidate for parliamentary elections, what approach would you take if you stood for elections again and made it to parliament?
LB: For the presidential elections, I would have chosen somebody with a very clear program, and I would have promoted this program irrespective of what happened next. But at least people would have known what I stood for. If enough people, either now or in five years or ten, stand behind this principle, it would amount to something. It’s like the turtle and the rabbit. Be a turtle, go steady with a program, with a certain person and platform, pushing for what you want to do. In 20 years, all these slogans we now are seeing will not have achieved anything unless someone strives for something different and is consistent in the right way and convinces people. It doesn’t make sense to go with whoever candidate is being presented just because you don’t have a platform, are unorganized, and have no strategy or vision to achieve what you say you want to achieve. A program is not just about what you want to do, it’s also about how you want to achieve it.
HK: How will the experience of the current independent parliamentarians affect the chances of future candidates?
LB: What is happening now is very bad because some of the current “change” parliamentarians unfortunately haven’t even tried to push for different and new policies and immediately succumbed to pressure from establishment parties to align themselves with those parties’ vision.
The night this group disintegrated was the night they went on television and were asked a very simple question: Are you in favor of civil marriage? And some said they were against it. The fight was also lost as the independent parliamentarians disappointed voters because of their inconsistencies, their lack of a unified program and strategy, and disagreed over even the most basic program items. So unfortunately, next time it will be harder, because people will not believe these candidates. If you launch big slogans and then become like the establishment parties and are inconsistent, people will classify you among the establishment politicians, who make empty promises. You have to act like a different kind of politician and engage in an altogether different form of politics in order to inspire the change we are talking about.
HK: What projects do you have in the pipeline?
LB: One of my plays, “Habibet Albi Enti” will run this fall for its 50th show. The play is a black comedy, also very anchored in politics. You wouldn’t connect it to the sociopolitical situation in Lebanon, but it is very much connected. It’s about someone who kidnaps a politician and the interaction between the two. Ultimately, it is about the relationship between the citizen and the Lebanese political establishment.
