It amazes me how those of us who like to think of ourselves (or present ourselves) as above sectarianism, never the less, cannot seem to escape from the sectarian pull or grip. Very few bloggers blog as Maronites, Sunna, Shi’a, Druze, Orthodox or as representatives of other sects. Most of us wrap the Lebanese flag around ourselves and suggest to each other that our voices are those of independent free-thinkers, who are able to transcend our sectarian folds and reach out to one-another as Lebanese. Yet, although we refuse to identify ourselves as sectarian partisans, openly promoting the interests of our respective leaders (we are obviously above such behavior), we consistently appear to carry the banners of the causes adopted by those very men. As such, we as individuals sum up to not much more, in an intellectual sense, than those high school drop-outs who make a living as bullies and thugs, roaming the streets to enforce the wills of their respective patrons.
Every one of us ought to remember that one of the main tasks of a politician is to define the boundaries of, and lay out the details of what constitutes “appropriate” political discourse. Therefore, we, as Lebanese do not need to come out and scream: “Druze Power!” or “Shi’a Power!” or articulate similar overt sectarian gestures. Fortunately/Unfortunately (however way you wish to see it), much more subtle means of practicing sectarianism exists; one of which being, acquiescence to the boundaries and rules of political discourse set by our sectarian leaders – all we effectively do is translate their words to English.
To give a very obvious example, a battle between two discourses exists in Lebanon today: one that asserts that the last war was a catastrophe for Lebanon, and another that characterizes it as an unprecedented victory. The level of consistency whereby bloggers of certain sects (and I know quite a few, including, of course, myself) took the side of their particular sectarian leader was frightening. This reality begs the following question:
Are we Lebanese Citizens who, like shoppers in a competitive market, have the power and judgment to choose among the different discourses displayed to us? Or are we, unbeknownst to ourselves, partisans who merely justify and promote the discourses of leaders based on sectarian kinship?
I think that bloggers need to step back, take a moment, and answer these questions. For ultimately, doing so will help us realize whether we are merely peddlers or Citizens.
In answering those questions, I suggest asking another: What is it that I would like Lebanon to be, or to look like in the near (and not-so-near future)? I need to know what it is I want, and therefore, what it is I expect before I can judge politicians and their discourse. Inevitably, we all have our unique answers because we are all different – but I doubt the differences are enough to justify the dramatically polarizing (and sometimes, unnatural) political choices we have made.
27 comments:
Let me open up a third option to shopping for discourses or mere partisanship:
How about developing your own discourse? Open up a 'third way'? Create public awareness and promote Civil society? Bring together Lebanese living in Lebanon and the diaspora?
Citizenship does not end at following the leadership of the few, whatever opinion they may stand for, but instead developing and promoting your own ideas, and THEN elect someone to represent those ideas (yes, I know, very idealistic...)
Try breaking with one of the things binding you: your perpetual quest for leaders.
I think the questions you ask are deep questions whose answers require tackling the very core of the Lebanese problem. We need to ask ourselves more questions before we can even hope to reach the ones you asked though.
Are we all Lebanese? Do we identify with Lebanon? or do we identify with the Lebanon of our sect?
I think the answer varies from person to person, and the extent to which each individual adheres to his sect's line is a subjective matter, and it is rather unfair to clump all bloggers together...
In any case what I am trying to get that, is that at the moment there is a vicious struggle going on in Lebanon. I cannot believe for one second that I am neutral in that struggle. Philosophers such as Marx and Machiavelli suggest (loosely) that to be neutral at a time of a power struggle is to side with the loser. In this particular case, I will say that I am anti HA. I disagree with their ideology to the core, but I concede that they have a right to express it. They have no right however, to bear arms, use them, and prostitute Lebanon to achieve their messianic goals...
As for the Lebanon that I dream of, well it is a Lebanon that neither you or me will ever see in our lives I am afraid. I hope that a secular Lebanon that can respect individual rights and freedoms of speech and belief or lack of belief. A Lebanon that is built as a progressive state with Liberal values... But who are we kidding, that is not Lebanon, it never will be.
@Doha
I think that saying that people acquiesce to the system is a bit strong, in my eyes you see the whole issue backwards:
The system is constructed in a way that let's people accept it, and acquiesce to it - not the other way round.
One of the biggest paradoxa in the history of political thought (especially the philosophy of Enlightening) is that freedom need rules. In order to be free, you have to make and follow rules. The rules have to be clear and indiscriminately apply to all, implying equality.
You folks are in a hard position.
If sectarian divisions are too tough to overcome, the only hope for a "stable" Lebanon is a dictatorship that squashes and supresses the sectarian BS. Not much of an option.
Another option is civil war, so that one sect gains clear dominance over the others. Not pretty, but at least if the Christians win, the others will live a better life as compared to if an Islamic sect wins. The problem with this scenario is that so much outside money would come in supporting one side or the other that it would go on forever. The UN would of course take action that only causes the suffering to be eternal, which is what they are doing now. Their troops will not do anything about Hizbolla, yet they provide them international human shields, not in the best interest of Lebanon.
The last option is an Israeli takeover. Perhaps if Lebanon invited Israel to pass thru to Syria, wiping out Hezbolla from the south to Bekka, the Lebanese army could gain some control. But the UN will interfere as much as possible.
This sectarianism is your bane, I've said before that the UN is no friend, and as long as you blame your troubles on Israel, you will live in sh*t.
kach,
I want to make a point: at the national level (in all countries), it is usually political machinery that sets public discourse with the assistance of the media. Therefore, Jumblatt, Nasrallah, and the rest have their partisans, their organizations and their media outlets. Each of those entities help impose those leaders' respective discourses, and combined, constitute pretty daunting opponents to up-and comming voices. Kach, my dear, it appears that the "barriers to entry" are pretty high.
Your recommendation that we tred on a "third path" is what I have suggested in my entry. This path, in my opinion, ought to be founded on the selfish question of what we as individuals want for our country, and where we would like to see it go.
sheri,
thanks for the long expose. I hope that all the conflicts in the region can be resolved. It is a selfish hope - because I seek peace and prosperity.
doha,
this post was mainly a critique on how individuals such as myself and yourself apparently (and I stress apparently) chose sides in this conflict based on sectarian impulse - even though we would like to think that we're better than that. Your point was that Lebanon lacks a system that resolves conflicts and determines a national agenda. I agree. And I wrote about it in one of my previous posts. However, in this post, I questioned the nature of the differences themselves. Why do they have to be based on sectarianism among what may be termed a relatively cosmopolitan, worldly and educated "elite?"
mr. smarterthan,
Your comment deserves one response: thank you for offering your wonderful knight in shining armour to rescue us Lebanese. You are so kind! First though, why don't you go and train him some more? You see, the last time he strutted his stuff, he tripped over his own toes and fell flat on his face.
We lack a strong debate in Lebanon, and the wider Arab world.
The main issue remains, however, that we talk little TO one another, and mostly AT one another. Anyone who points out the obvious shortcomings of our leaders is attacked as a Zionist agent, and his voice drowned out. To paraphrase Balthazar Gracian, "the fewer words, the fewer" oppression...
You are right in pointing out that we need some introspection and perspective. However, now that we are in a fight for the Arab soul, I can see little other option than confronting the intolerant among us.
There is little can do but either wait for the madness to die down, or just pack up and leave.
raja,
excellent points. politicians DO set the parameters of discourse; that is after all, their job, and their means to achieve the end the want.
our job is to try (emphasis on TRY) and to define our own parameters. if both sets overlap, then so be it.
I offer no one. I am not Lebanese nor Israeli. I am just an American who is sick of having to deal with 3rd world screwups that thanks to oil, and political correctness, now have the ability to screw up my life.
I told you that I see 3 options out of your trouble. I don't know what will happen, maybe you will surprise me by showing more intelligence than I expect. What I think will happen is that Lebanese will squabble among themselves too much to present a united front, the UN will, thru sheer incompetence, drag out the conflicts even more, and HB will strike again, prompting another israeli response that won't be near thorough enough.
My guesses on this are probably not far off. Heck, I forcast what the UN would do before the French turned chicken.
The key to civil society is the defeat of Tribalism
simon,
That's a tall order; we had an earful on Friday and Sunday. Tribal it is; with Flags...
Although political groups in the US is very different from sectarian groups in Lebanon, I'd like to offer a bit of possible optimism from how it's worked politically here...
There are groups that vote largely as one, yet over time subgroups have found themselves shifting some but not all of their views. For instance Blacks vote around 90% democratic. Yet as some of them have gained wealth, they show interest in republic business oriented views, making the black vote & their pressure on their representatives more of an ameoba than the once uniform view. Another example are Orthodox Jews while traditionally democratic, are meanwhile also supporting school vocher programs of republicians. There are many examples of these across many groups. It forces more cross-view dialog by politicians. Currently, in spite of the way it sometimes looks because of who makes noise, most americans are moderates sitting only slightly off center.
What's important to see is that when looking at the groups they continue to look very uniform, such as being 90% democratic, but there's a shift inside to make the group less uniform & more involved with other groups. So while it may appear that bloggers are commenting from within their sectarian backgrounds, & may continue to appear to do so, shifts in views can be happening & listening between groups might be happening where it wasn't before.
A More powerful yet subtle change over time... If there is a position that is shared by multiple groups, that view moves outside the group or sect & becomes a part of the larger political scene of the country. It's a subtle shift, but it removes the energy the group has about maintaining the position "because of pride in the group" since it is now shared with other groups. When enough pieces become part of the larger political scene & not sect specific, a trust in the nation is formed that competes with the sectarian unity. To put it another way, by reducing the connection of the position to the group there is more trust in the political system as a whole & therefore more trust in going along with (acquiencsing) to positions that aren't your's. There is a sense that the position itself was heard & given a fair chance to be voted on since it was on the country level & not just one sect talking at another.
Also an obvious is that shared interests adds some measure of trust between groups.
I hope I've explained that clearly. Certainly was hard to do.
This would lead to the idea that if Lebanese continually put their views on the public table - while separating out each piece of the view - ultimately some common grounds would be found & some of these views would cease to be sectarian & would be part of the national political views that are possible to have.
Raja,
I thing you are constantly overestimating the importance of the 'political machinery', i.e. falling for its propaganda.
You write that the political machinery sets the public discourse, the media being its assisstant. Well, I dare to disagree, since you write 'in all countries':
The media is a power of its own, with its own laws, and has to be considered separately from the political system. True, there is a symbiosis in some areas, but nevertheless, the media continues to exist as a separate force, one that controls, follows its own agenda, and one that can topple politicians and political agendas, e.g. Watergate.
Now, this of course was speaking from the viewpoint of an open society. Lebanon is a different case. Media is not as independent, opinions tend to be controversial on a basic level down to the point of denying somebody's right to exist or express himself. But in saying that it is up to the politicians to form the discourse you give them a power that they do not deserve. Politicians CAN, and also should, form public opinion, but they are not the only ones! They and their parties have to take their responsibilities towards the whole country, the public good, whatever, seriously. They should have to educate, enable the people to emancipate themselves.
My idea of a third path mainly is based on this concept of self-emancipation, i.e. not attributing the power of shaping the public discourse to politicians the way you seem to have done it in your first entry.
A politician is supposed to be the servitor of the people, not its king. At the very least he should act in accordance with the greater good of his electorate/people, even when telling them which way to go.
Back to reality:
Of course Jumblatt, Nasrallah & Co have enormous power in shaping public opinion through their media outlets, and the obstacles to entering the discourse with an independent opinion are high.
In respect to blogging this means even higher obstacles, as the blogosphere is a highly fragmented and biased medium, in that respect very democratic. One idea would be to try and bring Lebanese bloggers together, but this would require a great deal of mediation...a full-time job I guess. And, of course, you would have to convince people of the need for this step. Create some sort of giant Lebanese-politics wiki. I might be over my head here, but does sth like that already exist? Some sort of Toot, but just for Lebanon? Create some sort of circle only containing worthwhile blogs, i.e. not just containing blind and mindless screaming...they can be biased to the point of denying Lebanon's right to exist as a sovereign country, but that should be expressed with rational arguments...at least as far as possible. For the moderation of these kind of things it might be worthwhile to study the history of wikipedia and the philosophy behind it, and the current steps to revive the original idea with the 'citizendium' project currently trying to take of.
Take a grassroots approach to democracy with blogging...but if you look at the history of democracy you will see that there was one pre-requisite to all other practical efforts: a forum for a polis to develop. So, if you seriously want to change something, work on creating such a forum.
Yeah, and finally: I know, I am sitting here in a peaceful and quite prosperous-boring part of the world, and I have the spare time to patronize the world...but it would be a pity if the Lebanese couldn't somehow get their country on a better path, and I think a lot of people worldwide are currently and would continue to support you in these efforts. And it all begins with and idea, a dream...
Well the answer is simple. You're not secular; you're sectarian. Not everyone is, though. But I salute this rare moment of lucidity. I don't expect it to last too long.
fearless,
if you would like to participate in a discussion you're welcome, otherwise... .
jij,
I do not need you to tell me what I am or am not. I am humble enough to disclose my faults and shortcomings. However, it would interest me to know how it is you perceive yourself. I am curious because you appear to stand on such a high pedestal. Yet, five days ago, you wrote this in your blog:
There are two shining spots in our otherwise gloomy history: Israel’s withdrawal from the South in May 2000, and the heroic resistance of the Lebanese people in July-August 2006.
Fuck the naysayers.
Long live Lebanon.
Hmmm... . That particular piece of discourse might as well have come out of the mouth of a one-track-minded Hizballahi. I wonder why it is you chose those two particular incidents, and not others (like the "glorious" expulsion of Syrian forces from our country). Are not Syrian troops as foreign as Israeli troops?
Are we some province of Syria in your mind? Or maybe you'd allow your "brother" to forcibly move into your house and become head of the household at your expense, but "definitely" not a filthy stranger.
Of course, you could have chosen those two incidents for ideological reasons. For example, maybe, you are a member of (or prescribe to the ideology of) the SSNP. I bring that up because of your apparent (non-sectarian) bias in favor of Syrian occupation as opposed to Israeli occupation. In that case, and in light of your preferred political discourse, I think you need to ask yourself the question I posed in the original entry:
"What is it that you would like Lebanon to be, or to look like in the near (and not-so-near future)?"
If I am correct, and you do see Lebanon and Syria as part of a "Greater Syria," then do you believe that Hizballah will help you realize that dream (which, of course, I need not remind you, is secular)? If I am wrong, then I am perplexed as to your reason for adopting the most extreme of Hizballah's discourse as your own? Might there be a sectarian rationale (even if you yourself were not Shi'a)? Or would you really trust Hizballah with the fate of Lebanon (in that case why are you not training to become an engineer at the University of Tehran as opposed to whatever university it is you attend in Massachusetts?
>>
Brilliant post. Too many people shout the divisions, at least, inside their heads. Those who cannot escape from the sectarian pulls are destined to have their children live with violence on a daily basis.
It's why my Lebanese friend's mother told him "Do not go to Europe, it is too close to Lebanon. Go to Canada."
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/09/24/1889810-ap.html
"Heroic Resistance" sounds like a soviet slogan.
Israel ran over Lebanon at will, and we keep hearing how the poor Lebanese are victimized by the Syrians, Iran, HZB. Where is the heroic resistance? From guys like you that left, avoiding the battles, avoiding solving your political problems to live in another country? Who were the heroes? Did Lebanese forces engage the Israelis? Or do you call the actions of HZB "Heroic Resistance", thus admitting that the Lebanese people and HZB are one and the same?
Until you guys get over your delusions of granduer, you will remain a banana republic, with strife and turmoil.
Raja, I was just congratulating you on an uncharacteristic moment of honesty from your part. Why did you take it badly?
I am sorry but you are wrong in the conclusions you draw. I stand by what I said. Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon has brought nothing good from where I stand; sectarianism has increased ten folds and the country is at a complete standstill. Lebanon is at a much more backward point now. Why must we always be neurotic in our assessments? The Syrians withdrew, and then what? How is this any better? And what plans does your ilk have to make things better? Your “secular fun-loving” friends have simply shifted their subordination from the Syrian government to some other powers (which have much more sinister visions for our region I am afraid).
Your drive to assign tags to me is lamentable (“brother”, “University of Tehran”… What’s next? “mooo” and “khayyo”? Please be serious). So celebrating Israel’s humiliation or withdrawal is now equivalent to “adopting the most extreme of Hezbollah’s discourse” as my own? Shame shame… What has become of us…
I’ve said this before, let me say it again. I think of reasons why I should be opposed to Hezbollah, and I come up with a hundred. But with March 14, I don’t even have to think about it. The exercise is pointless. They are garbage a priori. They combine everything I despise in life: Tribalism, greed, appalling corruption, lack of spine, sectarianism, racism, and utter moral bankruptcy. I’ll side with Hezbollah any day rather than seeing my country being completely handed over to a bunch of medieval spineless thugs in suits you like to call “the Lebanese state”.
I guess Raja can better understand my positions by trying to figure out why the Lebanese Communist party has consistently sided with Hezbollah before, during and after the war. I am not a member of that party, but I honestly think they represent my views better than most. Note that they are sectarian (dah), nor do they believe Lebanon is a Syrian province, nor have most of their members been educated in Najaf or in Tehran. It must be some other thing. Something that might enlighten us on what secularism really means in Lebanon. But I’ll leave it to you to decide.
For what it's worth: this site has always seemed admirably above the fray to me, a symbol of the great society that Lebanon can one day become. (Trying, here, to balance the marxist slogans with a little LBJ.)
But what would I know? I'm just a limey living in the usa.
these are questions that a state should never stop asking of itself..
Most substantial political change has taken place through grassroots efforts. Only then has a leader stepped forward to say what those in the grassroots movement already knew. Black civil rights, India from England, Women's vote, Democratic g'vts in Europe.
I would agree with the prior comment, that there are many of us who would support Lebanon on it's path & are wishing you well. If Lebanon can figure it out, it will be a model for other places in the world too.
jij, you apply your logic selectively.
You ask what good has the Syrian withdrawal brought to Lebanon. However, you portray Israel's expulsion as a worthy end in and of itself. I tend to think that the liberation of a people from military occupation is a worthy end, in and of itself – whoever the occupier was and whatever the outcome.
May I not also ask you what good Israel's expulsion has brought about in Lebanon? The United Nations recognized Israel’s withdrawal in 2000 (as opposed to Syria’s recognized withdrawal in 2005). That length of time gave the country around five more years to reap the rewards of such a momentous event. Did we even get the peace that we all so longingly sought? I’ll leave you to answer that question.
You note in your response that ever since the Syrian withdrawal, sectarianism increased “10-fold,” and that “the country is at a complete standstill.” I find this analysis intriguing – especially considering the utter absence of any scientific basis of that assessment. Are you saying that the sectarianism you and I witness today was absent from Lebanese society and politics prior to the Syrian withdrawal? If so, please share with me the information you consider as evidence. As for the country being at a standstill, I ask, similarly: was the country “moving” anywhere under Syrian occupation? Can you even claim that the country existed – independent from Syrian tutelage? I doubt so.
No jij, it becomes increasingly clear to me, as you share your thoughts, that despite your gift for writing, you are lacking in the department of maturity, with regards to your political and social outlook. You make vague assertions about sectarianism and “movement” without providing us with any explanation of what you mean, or evidence to reinforce your claims – this despite your apparent scientific training. You make sweeping and extreme statements that only betray your disgust with the status quo. And lastly, you agree with an ideology that, if history has taught us anything, cannot be translated into reality despite numerous attempts in almost all corners of this globe.
hummbumm,
I have one comment: a free market society can only exist when the rule of law is instituted. I am a little pessimistic on that front. I am also pessimistic about a free market developing in Lebanon because it threatens the political elite who maintain their power (at least partially) by monopolizing the wealth.
In Lebanon we have private enterprize, but markets, unfortunately... .
Let me be a bit more patronizing:
Do you know what one of the main problems is in Lebanon? Somethign that is crystall-clear from my point of view, something I learned from my experience in Lebanon and other places?
You do not have a real history. Of course, every place has its own way of dealing with its history, that is constructing its own past, but in Lebanon (and the Arab world in general) this is being totally overdone.
Int he case of Lebanon: every party (and its leader) claims some part of the cake, every party committed massacres during the war, every party in Lebanon at one point fought other Lebanese, brothers killed brothers, all fought with the Syrians, against the Syrians, with Christians, against Christians...Amal against Hizballah...
There has not been any real reconciliation, at least not countrywide. You keep living in a de-facto Federalism, or let me but it more drastically, you keep living in parallel societies in the same tiny spot that is called Lebanon.
How can anyone seriously claim that the war against Israel was a shining victory and NOT be shipped off to an asylum immediately? How can anyone leave such a claim uncontended and not be shipped off to an asylum immediately? 1000+ Civilians dead, the war started from Lebanese soil (I know, I know, Israel had invaded Lebanon, Israel was only looking for an opportunity, all that...)
How can opinions left standing by the Lebanese public (at least the part that is not thinking the same...) that it is acceptable to have a militia who's aim it was to kill and maim innocent civilians, all along, who's whole strategy was just aimed at creating terror and kill Israelis...how can such a militia continue to exist and have legitimacy awarded to it for the sake of national unity?
I know that everyone is afraid of another Civil war, but it won't do any good to shy away from confronting radicalism...the more you ignore it, the more power you award to it...national catharsis doesn't always come cheap, but is a process, a fight...where's the March 14th spirit that managed to send the Syrians back over the border?
The problem in Lebanon summarized: you do not know where you want to go. You do not know what Lebanon even is. You do not even know what Lebanon isn't!
Do you want to be a sovereign people? Which are the core values you stand for?
If you don't find an answer to these questions soon, demographics will find the answer for you. Now is the time...
naturally raja. Of course. If I am not a chief Iranian, or a baathi, then I am talking out of emotions, or I'm immature. It's one or the other. The logic is unimpeachable. U ask about "scientific evidence". Have you followed the demos, elections, debates and speeches of the last year or so? What, do you want me to put it in an equation for me? As if you ever do such a thing.
Ideas are always the keys to salvation in situations like the one in Lebanon.
Instead of trying to appease certain interests along ethnic/religious lines such as electing Hizbollah to represent the impoverished Shia, why not enact a national minimum wage?
There are poor among Sunnis, Maronites, Druids, Kurds, and other groups, right?
The problem with leaders is that they often focus on retaining power, and can change their whims and ideals accordingly to stay in the political game.
Ideas have no paymaster and either yield results or don't. A minimum wage would give all Lebanese in less than well to do standing a common cause that crosses the ethnicity boundary.
It's obvious that political reform is needed, but before that can be possible with long term success, you need economic reform.
When I say "enacting a minimum wage" I mean to say an enforced minimum wage.
Improvement of local business situations with pro growth inititatives like tax break incentives for small business, an improved chamber of commerce to build jobs and provide security in typically impoverished regions based on a citizens own satisfaction with his or her own lot in life.
Lak ayri bi Michel Aoun, crazy mother fucker, lak w ayri bi neseralla, w ayri bi lahood
Post a Comment