I would like to think that there is at least a trace of rationality in our choices, as opposed to sectarian sentiment or simply, sentiment. Through this entry, maybe we will be able to clarify our rationale to ourselves, and each other.
Experience gained in debates with other Lebanese has taught me that in a single argument, several dimensions of a politician can be pertinent. When the argument revolves around a certain issue, like the geo-strategic position a politician takes, one or more other issues will be introduced, such as the politician's integrity and/or ideology (if one exists).
This reality has spurred me to attempt to breakdown the characteristics politicians based on several dimensions. The breakdown is not perfect, but it will help by (at least attempting) to lay all the cards on the table, for all of us to see.
The questions I ask myself when I look at the matrix are:
- Did I miss a dimension?
- Which of these characteristics are the most important to me?
- Which characteristics constitute red lines?
- Which political entity should I support based on this matrix?
- Do I merely support those who I percieve to effectively challenge the political entities I despise irrespective of their own qualities?
note #2: The boxes articulate fleeting descriptions of public perceptions as opposed to reality which is definitely much more complex. Of special concern are the categories of "agenda" and "corruption." Agendas, for their complexity, and corruption, for the lack of figures and an effective judiciary. Moreover, one commenter who goes by the name, Aounopolis, suggested a third dimension: time. Considering Lebanon's history, I am sure that time is a relevant variable to consider in this matter of selecting "favorite leaders."
My main worry however, is that if any reflection of reality were to attempt to represent too many facets of that reality, then it would become too complex, and ultimately useless. So while this particular table definitely needs more details, we all walk on a very thin line.