I have often been asked why I agreed to join the government, and why I stepped into Lebanon’s worst economic and financial crisis, knowing how deeply entrenched and resistant to change the system was.
I accepted the responsibility with conviction and a measure of hope, though without grand illusions. I knew that any serious attempt at reform would face opposition from the politico-financial nexus that had long thrived on privilege and impunity. Still, I believed we might make a difference and lay the groundwork for recovery.
I hoped that a crisis of such magnitude and the sheer scale of suffering — one that had left millions of Lebanese bearing the brunt of the collapse — would compel leaders to act in the national interest, and awaken a long-dormant sense of responsibility among the political and financial elite.
That hope proved misplaced. Even in the face of national ruin, those who had benefited most from the old order could not imagine losing their privileges. While my hopes were dashed, my conviction remains: public service matters and matters most when resistance to change is strongest — and that reform, in the end, is an act of moral courage.
A narrow path to recovery
I was tasked with leading negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on an adjustment program aimed at restoring confidence and regaining access to external support. My long experience at the IMF was one of the main reasons I was invited to join the government.
Ironically, that experience became a liability when certain media outlets, echoing vested interests, portrayed it differently — as serving the IMF rather than Lebanon. Utter nonsense.
The Staff-Level Agreement reached in April 2022 offered a realistic yet ambitious roadmap: restore fiscal balance, put public debt on a sustainable path, restructure the banking sector while protecting deposits to the greatest extent possible, and improve governance.
The financial lobby strikes back
At first, the agreement was welcomed. But soon after, organized opposition emerged. Among the loudest opponents was the Association of Banks in Lebanon (ABL), which led an aggressive campaign to protect banks’ equity, flatly refusing to respect the hierarchy of claims principle — an international norm and moral imperative — under which shareholders must lose their capital before depositors incur any losses.
Those who entrust banks with their savings should not be punished while the very institutions that mishandled those savings preserve even a fraction of their equity.
The ABL sought to shift losses to the state and, ultimately, onto the public, supported by politicians. While the state bore part of the blame and should contribute at least to maintain social cohesiveness without hurting the more vulnerable, banks cannot claim innocence.
Insisting on upholding this position, they disguised their opposition to accountability as a defense of depositors — a narrative that easily resonated with the public.
Their refusal to acknowledge losses or accept accountability was echoed by many members of Parliament and by some in government, effectively blocking every serious attempt at reform. This narrative was further amplified by sympathetic media outlets, with alarmist slogans — that the reform plan would “destroy the economy” and “erase deposits” — sowing confusion and fear.
In a time of economic crisis and shrinking advertising revenues, the politico-financial axis evolved into an iron triangle of politicians, financial groups, and media.
Strong opposition, weak resolve
Reform was treated as a political liability rather than a national necessity. Parliamentary debates were mired in delays and theatrics. Many MPs even denied the existence of a government plan. Others vowed not to “surrender to the IMF,” yet they offered no credible alternatives.
The absence of a unified voice in the government further undermined credibility. Reform requires a single narrative explaining why difficult choices are necessary and how they serve the national interest. Instead, mixed messages created confusion and eroded trust. Without a communication strategy, vested interests filled the void with distortion and innuendo.
The iron triangle of politicians, financial groups and media created the slogan that the government’s plan aimed to “wipe out deposits” and branded the plan as “the Saade Chami Plan.” The purpose was obvious: to personalize the debate and discredit the messenger rather than confront the message and debate the content.
What we said repeatedly — openly and transparently — was that when deposits are repaid over time, they inevitably lose part of their real value. A dollar received years later is worth less than a dollar today. That is not a policy choice; it is a financial fact.
Those who twisted this explanation into “writing off deposits” were deliberately misleading the public. Yet even some well-informed officials have recently joined this chorus.
Despite the strong opposition, giving up was never an option. To abandon reform is to accept permanent decline. When a state refuses to reform, it forfeits its legitimacy.
Reform is not merely a technical matter — it is both a political will and a moral obligation. It demands placing the public good above private privilege. Courage, not convenience, is what drives reform.
Lessons for the future
Lebanon’s repeated failures reveal why reform remains elusive. The politico-financial-media complex moved forcefully to block change. Still, some lessons stand out.
Honesty and transparency are the starting points. Reform begins with a candid acknowledgment of the depth of the crisis. Denial has been Lebanon’s most destructive policy. A government that communicates clearly and consistently can rebuild credibility and trust. Transparency is the antidote to rumor and the foundation of accountability.
Strong institutions matter. Capable institutions — above all, the central bank, the Ministry of Finance, and the judiciary — should be fully transparent, merit-based, and shielded from political interference.
Decisiveness and sequencing are essential. Comprehensive reform does not mean doing everything at once; it means acting decisively where impact is greatest. A credible banking-resolution framework would have restored confidence and demonstrated seriousness.
Domestic ownership and continuity in government are indispensable. International partners can make reform less painful, but without genuine national ownership, every program risks failure. External support must reinforce, not replace, domestic ownership. Continuity in governing is a must — but it is lacking, as I witnessed firsthand.
The politico-financial complex must be broken. Reform cannot endure while power and privilege remain intertwined. Disentangling this entrenched web of finance and politics through conflict-of-interest rules and full disclosure is vital to restoring integrity in public life.
Strong leadership can still make a difference even within a broken system. Lebanon’s transformation will not happen overnight, as the ingredients for a fundamental change in the political order are not yet present. But with strong and courageous leadership, modest and steady measures can create momentum, shift expectations, and make broader reform conceivable.
Above all, leadership demands courage and integrity. True leadership lies in the willingness to lose office for the right cause rather than keep it for the wrong one. Public officials must speak the truth when silence is safer. This is the essence of public service.
The choice before us
Lebanon cannot afford another decade of drift. Around us, countries are modernizing at high speed — investing in digital technology, artificial intelligence, and building productive economies — while we remain trapped in circular debates. Stagnation is no longer the status quo; it is regression.
In the face of strong opposition, policymakers must persevere and make decisions rather than wait for a full consensus — something difficult to achieve in the current system. Leadership must choose courage over convenience, truth over illusion, and responsibility over fear. Only then can we begin to rebuild confidence — and the country itself.
Saade Chami is a Lebanese economist, academic and politician who served as the deputy prime minister of Lebanon in Najib Mikati's Cabinet from 2021 to 2025.
A longer version of this op-ed can be found on the website of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs.
Washington talks stall on 2nd day over 'pilot zones'