The relationship between the two poles can be characterized as dialectical. In brief, Michel Awn posed such a violent challenge to the status quo in Lebanon -- to the traditional ruling groups, to the militias, to the occupying powers, and to the policies of other international actors -- that he generated momentum for concerted action among most of those disparate groups, if only to rid themselves of him and the crisis he had created. In the process, the Taif Agreement, which represents a new National Pact for Lebanon, one that could lay the foundations for an end to the interconfessional tension and fighting that have been a central part of the war in Lebanon since 1975, was born. To be sure, Michel Awn did not realize his own professed goals of freeing the country from foreign occupation and disbanding the militias, but his actions did have the inadvertent effect of forcing his many Lebanese opponents to come to an agreement among themselves. In that sense, his explosive style and his aggressive rejection of the status quo seem to have been catalysts for reconciliation among the many factions in Lebanon -- a reconciliation long overdue. It remains to be seen, however, whether this spirit of cooperation, employed to overcome Awn and embodied in the Taif Agreement, will survive his demise, or whether, now that Awn has been subdued, the various factions and forces operating in Lebanon will return to their accustomed pattern of division and conflict in which they have thrived since the collapse of the Lebanese state in 1975.

In the following pages, I will review Michel Awn's tenure in Ba`abda and then examine the political ramifications of the Taif Agreement and the fortunes of the Hrawi government entrusted with the task of beginning to implement that Agreement.