It is interesting to observe how long and passionate discussions about identity can become. Personally, I take pride in my identity, as I am sure most people do. That probably explains part of the intensity of most discussions that revolve around the issue.
But I am curious: when Lebanese talk politics, we always end up talking identity. Why is there this unbreakable link between politics and identity? Don't get me wrong! Politics everywhere involves some form of identification (for example: you identify yourself with a labor union you belong to, or a political party, etc...) But in Lebanon, the identities that matter are tribal and religious (i.e. personal) identities that, at best, have extremely vague policy implications in today's world. Personal identities are also very intimate. Therefore, discussions that revolve around them are prone to be very emotional, and the results are high-intensity debates that are ends in themselves rather than means to a productive outcome!
For example, if you identify yourself with a labor union, everybody knows where your stands are with regards to minimum wage, or health insurance. But, if you identify yourself as a Maronite, or a Dirzi, how the hell am I supposed to figure out what your stance on those issues is? Would you even know? That's a silly example, but try this: expand it to every single issue that comes up in managing the affairs of a modern state, and you'll realize how politically immature we are as Lebanese.
There's no escaping it: the way we organize ourselves as a society in Lebanon is COMPLETELY out of sync with the demands of the modern world and the affairs of the modern state! There is NO doubt about that!
However, since this phenomenon is doing so much damage to our country, i'd like to understand it. The best way to do this is to figure out what concrete policies (if any) go along with identifying yourself the traditional way. I'll start with the easiest identity because we've already brought it up in previous posts: the "Arab" identity. Then I'll try and build on it.
Identity: Arab
Policies:
1. Continue fighting the Israelis until only God knows when
2. ummm... can someone help me out here? what other concrete policies does labeling yourself an "Arab" lead to? my head's starting to hurt!
Okay... since that was a fruitless exercise, lets go down to the sect-level. We all know that Lebanon is a small country, and that within this small country, Lebanese are divided into smaller groups. Every single one of these groups seems to have this urge to identify with something bigger and (hypothetically) better:
Sunnis are perceived to idolize other Sunni-Arab countries (or in some cases, the way things were 700 years ago)
perceived policy objectives:
1. get all men to grow beards
2. get all women to wear hijabs
3. be the most powerful group in Lebanon
4. continue the war against Israel
Shi'as are perceived to idolize Iran
perceived policy objectives
1. get all men to grow longer beards
2. get all women to wear black hijabs
3. be the most powerful group in Lebanon
4. continue the war against Israel
Christians (and maybe even Druze b/c of proximity) are perceived to idolize Western countries
perceived christian policy objectives
1. get all women to wear skimpy clothes
2. get all men to be clean shaven and to speak french
3. be the most powerful group in Lebanon
4. stop fighting Israel
perceived druze objectives
1. get every one to act like he's from a different religion!
2. be the most powerful group in Lebanon
3. confused about this whole Israel thing
Okay, this is all an extreme caricature, but its not that far from the truth! With traditional groups, there really is no room of complex political classification and discourse. Traditions and religion are all about securing social order, so when the political groups are religious/sectarian, ultimately every group becomes irrationally paranoid about protecting its own way of life.
All of this has to change! personal identity, beliefs, traditions, need to be pushed into the backburner of Lebanese politics. Our politics needs to catch up with the times... its either that, or we'll always be behind... we'll always look outside of Lebanon for inspiration... and worst of all, the prospect of civil war will always be with us!
The next time you talk politics with a Lebanese friend, try not talking about sectarian affairs.... I know its hard, but test yourself; and see how long the discussion lasts!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
In re Brian H:
1. It is childish to respond for the sole purpose of pointing out minor spelling errors.
2. You post asif America's political system makes sense when it actually does not. The issues are divided up into really stupid ways. For example, if you are a Republican than you must be for the death penalty and against abortion...why? These issues have nothing to do with each other. It doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "you like coffee, therefore you also like bullfighting."
Hummbumm, i don't mean to bash anybody. my point is to try to get (all) Lebanese to look at the mirror and ask tough questions. Even the concept of "Arabism" has become minimalized in Lebanon.
But the over-arching question I pose is why politicize it? If I want to percieve myself as an Arab, then I should be perfectly free to do so... and what should it matter to you, or anyone else? It is my personal choice; not political.
Furthermore, it is very difficult to change people... but its not so difficult to change the rules of politics. That is why I've always proposed removing sectarianism from Lebanon's political chessboard as a first step.
the big political players should find out where they stand in matters of government; get together, and form corresponding political parties! that's the key: "matters of government"! Once they make that concsious decision, we'll take a huge step away from sectarian politics.
some of you might say: how naive! But look at what happened in "independence 05". The leaders said "only Lebanese flags", and everybody complied. This example highlights that once political leaders decide to play ball, the people follow in their lead!
Come on, Raja. How many Muslim men REALLY want women to stop wearing skimpy outfits. I mean, that's the main reason why Saudi women come here without their husbands: they lak 2 git neked.
Also, there are a lot of Sunni who don't care at all about Israel. They fit into the °the Palestinians are dirty,° °where can we make more money° camp.
I think that politics of indentity evoke sharper emotions (survival? territorialism?) than politics of governance, and that's why we haven't been able to get out of their grip in Lebanon. Politics, like many other things, are victims of sensationalism these days. Which of the following political speeches draws you more?
"The Romulans have always considered Lebanon as their country, only for themselves. They can have it after they kill every single one of us Klingons. We'll die standing up rather than give up our principles and our land to them."
"We should consider taxing capital to establish programs for social justics. First we need to determine how much taxation would make economic sense, and then we need to determine what exactly it means to have social justics. Let's debate this, shall we? Oh and folks don't forget Tuesday evening's town hall debate on the potential impact of a peace treaty with Israel on the complex and fragile social fabric of Lebanon. Tata"
It's too bad that you side-stepped this important topic. In the end, you never answered your own question: why do identities matter? The only thing you did was brushed them off as "emotional" and not "modern." In essence, you took the modernist (not necessarily in a positive sense) approach that such (primodial) identities (what you call "personal") are ephemeral and essentially pre-modern, and thus stand in the way of the rational bureaucratic state, which is the sought end.
That's too bad. Why are they important? Why are they so protected in the constitution of the most powerful state on earth?
We in Lebanon have this silly approach to the issue of pluralism and identity: no to sectarianism, yes to secularism. But there never is a clear understanding of either concept. When you ask further, you get responses to very specific particulars, like marriage and divorce and other personal status laws. Or, perhaps, some complaint about nepotism. Great, that's valid. But, you never address the broader questions of identity, and what system is more suitable to a segmented society. What are the implications of majoritarianism? What are the repercussions of having a strong centralized government? Do these "personal" identities just vanish in favor of "evolution" towards a more "rational" and "modern" secular state? Is "secular" the opposite of these "personal" identities? Are they really religious? etc.
That's why I always try to shed more light about consociationalism or consensual democracy. An important point in Reem's post was overlooked: "Is the sectarian nature of Lebanon, in any way a barrier to the emergence of such “authoritarian” takeovers? Can it act as a system of check and balances in a democratic environment?"
What are the ways for us to adjust the problems of the system while staying within the consociational framework, which seems to have been the center that everyone evolves around? etc. (Michael Young's op-ed in the DS is a good example of what I mean.)
This is important, so let's give it some more serious thought.
Cheers
Tony,
I agree. Under the political status quo, consociational democracy is the best formula for Lebanon. Had it not been for that system, Lebanon could have become just another dictatorship.
However, let's not paint too much of a rosy picture. I have two problems with the system that I'd like to list:
1. it's not as democratic as it appears
2. the kind of politics it breeds leaves a lot to be desired.
LACK OF DEMOCRACY:
Our system is based on primordial & religious identities. Therefore, freedom of association is almost non-existent (You're basically born into your political party). The result is pluralism and a balance of power at the elite level, but very little choice for the individual Lebanese voter.
POLITICAL DISCOURSE
political discourse also suffers in our consociational democracy. I've spent enough words on trying to explain why, so I won't go into it here.
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
I am not a revolutionary! My thoughts and ideas may be very extreme, but my proposed actions are practical and calculated. Therefore, incremental changes like the following could be a great first step:
1. Bicameral Parliament: the lower house would probably turn into a rubber-stamp parliament, but it would at least introduce some fluidity to a very rigid political scene.
2. Continued Discussion: we need to continue to discuss realistic improvements to the Lebanese political system. One of the biggest disappointments in Lebanon is the subdued intelligentsia. Beirut's cosmopolitan population needs to be me more active and vocal.
3. Finally, I already proposed something in a previous comment. The current leadership should create national parties that have agendas pertaining to (technical???) affairs of the state. These parties could also be jokes, but at least they lay the groundwork for moving towards more effective governing institutions for Lebanon.
doha,
the reason I proposed a bicameral parliament is so that people like us (Lebanon's cosmopolitan population) may get a public and official platform through which to push their agenda.
the traditional leadership wants a "house of lords". Let them have it! It will eventually end up like its counterpart in England today.
I believe you mentioned a "mixed parliamentary electoral system" in one of your posts. I don't see how that would be better than a bicameral system. Could you explain your rationale for that belief?
Post a Comment