Some in the Lebanese blogosphere have proclaimed the consensus candidate for Ba'bda Aley as a 'cataclysmic' blow to democracy. I respectfully disagree; but even if I did agree with that assessment, so what???
Lebanon's problem is not related to democracy. I repeat... Lebanon's problem is NOT related to democracy. Maybe the Syrian and Saudi problem is their lack of democratic institutions, but the Lebanese problem is not. Every democracy on this Earth possesses authoritarian elements - elements that thwart the "democratic will."
In the United States, you have the Supreme Court, the court system and the US Constitution, all of which form essential components of the "checks and balances" system, which was explicitly designed to thwart the democratic will. A less intentional and more sinister authoritarian element in the United States is the duopoly of the Republican and Democratic parties, and the fact that the system is extremely friendly to incumbents. I'm not too sure about numbers, but it is a well known fact that only an extreme minority of seats in both houses of Congress are actually contestable. The rest of the seats… well, just take a good look at Ted Kennedy.
What do the theorists say about this? Well, they don’t seem to agree. Democratic theory is more like a spectrum than anything else. On one end, are those theorists who claim that a democracy should amount to nothing more than "competition between political elites," in which the only democratic institution available to the regular citizen is the right to vote. On the other end, are those theorists who claim that the vote is inherently undemocratic because it delegates politics to "representatives," as opposed to maintaining it in the hands of the citizen.
I tend to agree more with those who claim that democracies should be limited to a competition among members of the political elite, in which citizens hold them accountable for their performance. Consequently, I disagree with those who assert that the major problem in Lebanon is its democracy (or, a lack thereof). Rather, I argue that the real problem lies in Lebanon's authoritarian institutions (the authoritarian elements within the country’s democratic system).
For example, rather than rely on the Supreme Court for checks and balances, we rely on the Sects to balance each other out. And, rather than rely on the institution of meritocracy, we rely on nepotism. And rather than rely on a secular code of laws that regulates the “personal status” of all citizens, we rely on religious courts that pay no respect to individual rights and other modern rights such as those pertaining to women.
Therefore, the calamity in Lebanon does not lie in Ba’bda Aley or the country's democratic system. Arriving at a consensus candidate is a normal development in all democratic systems. In Lebanon, the real calamity lies elsewhere….
Lebanon's problem is not related to democracy. I repeat... Lebanon's problem is NOT related to democracy. Maybe the Syrian and Saudi problem is their lack of democratic institutions, but the Lebanese problem is not. Every democracy on this Earth possesses authoritarian elements - elements that thwart the "democratic will."
In the United States, you have the Supreme Court, the court system and the US Constitution, all of which form essential components of the "checks and balances" system, which was explicitly designed to thwart the democratic will. A less intentional and more sinister authoritarian element in the United States is the duopoly of the Republican and Democratic parties, and the fact that the system is extremely friendly to incumbents. I'm not too sure about numbers, but it is a well known fact that only an extreme minority of seats in both houses of Congress are actually contestable. The rest of the seats… well, just take a good look at Ted Kennedy.
What do the theorists say about this? Well, they don’t seem to agree. Democratic theory is more like a spectrum than anything else. On one end, are those theorists who claim that a democracy should amount to nothing more than "competition between political elites," in which the only democratic institution available to the regular citizen is the right to vote. On the other end, are those theorists who claim that the vote is inherently undemocratic because it delegates politics to "representatives," as opposed to maintaining it in the hands of the citizen.
I tend to agree more with those who claim that democracies should be limited to a competition among members of the political elite, in which citizens hold them accountable for their performance. Consequently, I disagree with those who assert that the major problem in Lebanon is its democracy (or, a lack thereof). Rather, I argue that the real problem lies in Lebanon's authoritarian institutions (the authoritarian elements within the country’s democratic system).
For example, rather than rely on the Supreme Court for checks and balances, we rely on the Sects to balance each other out. And, rather than rely on the institution of meritocracy, we rely on nepotism. And rather than rely on a secular code of laws that regulates the “personal status” of all citizens, we rely on religious courts that pay no respect to individual rights and other modern rights such as those pertaining to women.
Therefore, the calamity in Lebanon does not lie in Ba’bda Aley or the country's democratic system. Arriving at a consensus candidate is a normal development in all democratic systems. In Lebanon, the real calamity lies elsewhere….
4 comments:
Lebanon a democracy?
it s not technicaly democracy since all the power is in the hand of the parlement, it more an oligarchy anyway
besides that the secterian, feodalist, communitarism etc... structure doesnt allow democracy
really we see u re not in lebanon ;)
French Eagle,
some have argued that the American system is oligarchic... and the French and the British... etc, etc...
Besides do you attribute Lebanon's failures to its formal democratic institutions or to societal factors?
Not "technically" a democracy?! And that is "since" the power is in the hand of the Parliament?! Communalism doesn't allow for democracy? Really!?
It's funny Raja that you should write on this. I was thinking of writing a post on this myself, especially after reading some hysterical reactions in the Lebanese blogosphere... I mean seriously... people need to take a serious chill pill.
Ghassan,
Two points:
1. Theoretically: Democracy is not the only ideal in the formula of liberal-democratic states. There are other ideals that do not get along too well with democracy. I believe you are very aware of the notion of "tyranny of the majority."
2. Practically: all I am saying is keep it real buddy.
Okay, forget the US. Let's talk Germany. Are Coalition Governments not harmfull to the principle of democracy?
Let's say that I voted for the SDP and its political/economic agenda. The party then decided to form a coalition government with the Green Party. In order for the Green Party to join the coalition, the SDP had to adopt some aspect of the Green Party's agenda and forgo, or at least, reprioritize its own agenda.
Is that practice not detrimental to democratic ideals?
Well, you tell me. But What I do know is that the government was formed by consensus and that eventhough the SDP is the leading coalition partner, the new consensus agenda is definitely not what I voted for.
Like I said before, keep it real!
Post a Comment