We need a Lebanese political process that yields political decisions that all Lebanese parties and individuals abide by. I do not care how sacred certain Lebanese believe their missions or causes to be. I do not even care how unjust they believe a certain situation is. The Primary rationale, or reason behind any action (a reason that supersedes all others) must be that it is a product of the Lebanese political process.
What I have despised (and I mean utterly despised) about Hizballah, and its behavior over the past two years has been its arrogance, and its insistence on taking the entire country on a direction that it deems as right. The party (and its supporters) scoff at the Lebanese political system and pay lip-service to whatever existing processes exist for the country to reach some sort of consensus over the its fate. Their motto has been: it's my way or the highway, and they have the guns to give that phrase re-enforced meaning.
When a plural majority in
The natural inclination of individuals is to assume that notions such as "Lebanese interests" are set in stone - i.e. Lebanon's interests have always been to do this or do that. This assumption could not be farther from the truth. Notions such as national interests are subject to debates, discussions, and ultimately decisions (decisions that all parties must accept, and abide by).
Truly “Lebanese” interests can only be the product of such processes. In
27 comments:
inshalla amen
www.emspeace.blogspot.com
Chas,
What a succint & clear way to put such a power policitically effective move. The insight is much appreciated.
Cheri
where did dimitry go.. i miss his thoughts..
;)
Let me be the vox diaboli for a while here, if only for the sake of the argument:
Hizballah is considered part of the Lebanese political spectrum - and rightly so.
Hizballah is considered to have acted contrary to Lebanese interests - I and at least 50% of the Lebanese agree.
Raja, you speak of Lebanese interests and a Lebanese political process, however imperfect...you speak of going back to the basics, so shouldn't the main question be:
What is Lebanon? What is it comprised of? What is its nature? Shouldn't 'going back to the basics' be a revision or expansion of Ta'ef?
Including Hizballah in the political spectrum can only come at the 'cost' (not meant in a necessarily negative way here) of changing Lebanon's nature forever.
Since 1943 Lebanon has been living partly a dream. There is no single Lebanese society, but Lebanon is split along sectarian lines. Of course, European and other powers immensely influenced and continue to influence Lebanon's history, but in my eyes this has been used as an excuse for Lebanese not to confront their own divisions and distribution of power along religious and sectarian faultlines. Hizballah and its so-called resistance is the best example for this.
Do you believe that the current political process with the current distribution of power can yield any positive results for all of Lebanon? A couple of months back angry mobs burned tires and marched through Beirut when Nasrallah was made fun of in a very, very restricted way...with the background of the recent war and the full responsibility of Hizballah of having started it, do you truely believe that just going along the current road will reap results? Shouldn't going back to the basics really touch on the basics of Lebanese self-definition? What about a possible federal structure? What's the comission on that doing nowadays? Wouldn't it be time for a bolder approach?
Raja,
"I do not even care how unjust they believe a certain situation is."
Does this also include the cause for The Truth?
yes it does, hassan. but i see where you're going, and you're right to point it out.
kachumbali,
you're essentially asking for an overhaul of the entire system. Every single Lebanese, with the exception of the political elite who benefit from the political status quo will tell you that Lebanon's political process and democratic institutions are deeply flawed. However, there are two problems I see with raising this issue:
1. Whereas everyone may agree that the current system is flawed, there is no agreement on what is the better alternative. Some call for smaller electoral districts, others call for one national electoral district, and yet others call for a bicameral system with different electoral rules for each branch. Again, as I mentioned in my entry, there can be no "correct choice" no "Lebanese choice" unless it is arrived at through EXISTING political processes and institutions.
2. The second problem I see with challenging the most basic of issues is that doing so is a practice all too often reverted to by the losers of the existing process. Almost every coalition, party, or even individual politician who loses an election or performs poorly, all of a sudden, begins to question some very basic assumptions. They challenge the process that yielded those particular results, and in so doing, justify their own intrasigence.
Ultimately, I believe that we will arrive at a political process that is less fraught with problems than the one we are stuck with today. As long as Lebanese are willing to accept that such a mechanism can only be arrived at through deliberations and compromise, we will get there. Otherwise, the country will simply fracture under its own weight.
Raja,
thank you for your lengthy reply. However, again I must ask:
You talk about basics, going back to the basics, and I question the basis of the current Lebanese political system as being a dangerous illusion. Furthermore, you write that the loosers of elections/of the political process revert to questioning the basics in an unproductive manner. Allow me to take up that idea: aren't most Lebanese the loosers of the current political system (just look at the war, the politically motivated murders, the bombs all throughout 2005 and 2006), and shouldn't most Lebanese begin to seriously question the pace things are moving along with? Not just to raise more dust, but to seriously try and settle the dust already in the air? Instead I see
I remember that in some circles in Lebanon even just discussing a possible Federal system would immediately get you the label 'traitor' and make further discussion impossible.
I agree with you that a systemic change must be the product of the internal Lebanese political process, but until now I observe a national dialogue not worth the name, further eating away at the legitimacy of the feeble parliament and political institutions.
The fact alone that the territory of the Sheba'a farms, that measely little plot in the middle of nowhere, that this territorry can be used to justify armed militias and challenging the monopoly of power of the state, that these few sqkm are utilized to block or at least slow down a whole country, this fact makes a future outlook for Lebanon a truely grim one.
Deliberations and compromise are a precondition to a productive dialogue and exchange, but so far I also see a lot of shying away from the main issues, people busy securing their piece of the political cake in not touching the basics of the system. I see a shying away from the questioning one's identity and the direction the whole country and its politics should take. Don't get me wrong, I think that some admirable progress has been made especially in the last year, but then sadly a lot more issues have been left untouched and simmering.
i think raja's point is that the people of lebanon decide when they elect their government once every so often and on and ongoing basis the elected representatives and the country's official institutions adminsiter these interests as they interpret them within their designated and delegated powers in accordance with your regime..
this is different from a bunch of militants deciding that their interpretation should prevail at the expense of the nationally declared agenda by the arsm of government and executing a path of their own liking in the face and to the denegration of the national bodies..
whats more - when such a renegade group is funded.. guided and serves as the protoge of another country - this is clearly a situation that needs attention..
i think raja is calling for the reinforcement and re-empowering of the bodies charged with lebanon's affairs and not those that seek to assume it by force under the guise of better recognition of your interests..
wishing you peace in any event
lirun
telaviv
www.emspeace.blogspot.com
oops my comment was aimed @ the disillusioned
;)
ok whoops.. on second read it looks like you are calling for reform..
in which case i join those who ask.. how? what do you envisage..
First: what decides lebanese interests is not your opinion, nor is it mine, or the opinion of the gal from bint jbeil. The process decides it. The process must define it; or else it is not Lebanese (however much all three of us would like to think our opinions represent Lebanon's best interests).
Second: the system is not "flawed beyond repair." Who are you to say it is flawed beyond repair? Who do you represent? On what basis do you make such a judgement? What kind of a system would you find suitable for Lebanon?
kachumbali,
your profile says you are german. I know a little bit of german history - very shallow of course. From what I understand, there were many german princelings, i.e. state-lets. Ultimately, the most backwards (culturally and economically) of the statelets "united" Germany by systematically invading all the others. Do you consider this history to be a sound basis for Germany as a nation-state? From what I understand, Bavarians, today, still refer to Germans outside of their province deridingly as "Prusians" and identify themselves with Bavaria first, and then (grudgingly) Germany.
Germany as a nation-state today, is so secure because the national political process so overwhelms all of its competitors as a vehicle for setting the german agenda and distributing resources (irrespective of history or the validity of the most basic assumptions - e.g. germans willingly came together to form one great nation).
Another point: the problem in Lebanon is not delegation of authority. Lebanon, defacto is already a federal state. The overwhelming problem we face in Lebanon today, is: how do we decide on the "national agenda"? A de jure federal system will not help on that front - because even federations need to come to an agreement on at least certain basic issues at the national level.
And finally, you speak of our politicians, and chastize them for their selfish desire to take as large a peice of the political pie as possible. Thank you for having such high expectations of Lebanese politicians, but I wonder whether you have the same expectations for German politicians? I'm sorry for sounding a bit harsh here, but politicians are politicians - or rather humans are humans: and whether they do it consciously or not, they seek to accumulate power.
My ultimate point is that we all see a big mess in Lebanon, but maybe that mess has a little to do with our own high expectations. The process exists. It is not perfect (and not all "Formal"). It is usually stepped on, but it will always be there.
Raja,
Excellent post. I agree with your overall idea here. Specially the part about "Lebanese interests not being set in stone". Any country in the world (spare for some other dinosaurs like Syria) are nimble enough (for lack of a better word) to adjust their "national interests" based on pragmatical considerations and realism. We in the Arab world seem to have this notion of valuing rhetoric over realism. It amazes me, for example, that we still have to listen to our leaders in Lebanon, paying lip-service to antiquated ideologies like pan-arabism or the Palestinian cause, for example.
Having said all that, I do agree with the commenter who thinks our system is flawed beyond repair. There is a single point of failure, in my opinion, namely the idea that Lebanon should do things by concensus. While in an ideal world, that seems like a noble idea, the truth is that concensus makes for a weakened central government that's incapable of applying ANY policy. You simply cannot make EVERYONE happy (which is what concensus is all about).
The very notion of Democracy, like it or not, is the recognition that some groups (the minority) might be unhappy, but will have to abide by the decisions of the majority. Lebanon does not seem to grasp that concept over the years.
Our system of concensus has made instead for complete and utter paralysis and an inability to get ANYTHING done. I don't see that changing until a REAL system is put in place, and more importantly, until the mentality changes to where people grasp the concept of being in a system where they might not always get what they want.
Hello Raja,
again, thank you for the long response. I will try and answer in two steps, one concerning Germany and the way to German statehood (I actually have a short paper ready, one I wrote for a presentation at the USEK, if your interested, just email me), and the second one concerning Lebanon. You might want to skip to part 2 directly...
1. Germany was united from above, not by a popular revolution, in 1871 under Prussia. Prussia at the time was one of the foremost powers in Europe, industrially, militarily and scientifically. The German popular revolution of 1848 had failed, with disastrous effects for German liberals and democratic movement. However, a sentiment of belonging together, a sentiment of a German Nation, a Kulturnation, a sentiment of being German had developed throughout the centuries in the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation (~since 800) with a common language, customs, etc. The 18th century with its political ideas, and later the French revolution, sparked different ideological developments in Germany. The big two movements were Conservatism, backed by most aristocrats and other reactionaries, and Liberalism, backed by interellectuals, students, etc. The idea of one Germany, of a German nation transcending the many little statehoods, was further forged in the Napoleonic wars. My point here is that a German nation had been existant, but the concept was pretty much opposed to a Nationalism of French nature, i.e. French republicanism. Actually German authors and thinkers like Fichte and Herder inspired later Arab theoreticans trying to develop the notion of one Arab nation; certain main ideas of pan-arabism and baathism were inspired by these German thinkers of the period of Romanticism who tried to define what elements form a Nation and its character. The German Empire of 1871 found its end 1918 in the face of an imminent Allied invasion; the treaty deliminating the new German borders and defining Allied predominance over German politics, also blaming full responsibility for causing the war on Germany, was drawn mere miles from the conferences shaping the Middle East and creating Lebanon. The Weimar Republic was formed, and it was the first legitimate and democratic government in Germany also expressing the liberal and democratic ideas which had grown during the 19th century, and the first German republic clearly showerd that the unified territorial entity called Germany had a sound basis in all respects. Cultural differences, however, of course continued to exist, and still exist to the present day. In the same manner that the United Kingdom comprises several regions with their specific cultural backgrounds Germany consists of several 'Nations', same as in all major countries all over the world. And, it is true, Bavaria remains the only state not to have officially ratified our constitution, the Grundgesetz. Instead, they continued their discussions in 1949 till the necessary 3/4 majority of the other states had accepted the draft for it to become the new valid constitution. But this, practically, has no effect whatsoever on actual political life. Divisions in Germany run along Economic faultlines. One last word: the political process of the Federal Republic of Germany (i.e. since 1949) includes many different actors battling for influence, a Liberal society with a strong emphasis on personal freedom, independent judiciary and Media, the political parties, but also the 2 main churches, multiple business circles, labour unions, etc; all of this is Germany and forms the base for the modern German Nation state and the German way of life.
2. First of all, I believe that politicians around the world are pretty similar in wanting to maximize their political gain, sometimes at horrendous costs for the public good. But in my opinion Lebanon, and the Middle East in general, but let's stay with Lebanon; Lebanon's politics are incredibly centered on notions of personal leadership at the cost of supra-personal institutions which could transcend the individual and guarantee the funtioning of the state regardless of personality and competence of a Political leader. This is not something new, but at the base of Lebanese society, regardless of religious affiliation, resulting in sclerotic political institutions. These institutions, and most importantly, trust in these institutions have to grow over time. But with this background, I believe that the personality and integrity of political leaders in Lebanon is more important for the common good than in other countries where an intact state and an independent judiciary can act as a self-governing instance and correct personal inadequacies.
3. I agree with you on the point of Lebanon already de-facto being a Federal state, but wouldn't it be time to aknowledge this fact and adapt the state and political institutions? If you want to go back to the basics you would have to adress the question of Lebanese reality, and the widening gap between the de jure and the de facto system. I am aware that this is not possible in the 'European' sense, i.e. due to the many facettes of the Lebanese political landscape it is illusionary to attempt to completely capture all interests in a document, and more will always have to be left open to discussion and negotiation than in other countries. In my eyes, and of course this is only an outside perspective, you could start by a new population cencus to determine the true weight of each faction, at least relatively speaking. But then this would probably only lead to more conflict. But adressing the above mentioned widening gap between reality and theory concerning Lebanese politics can only benefit the greater good of all Lebanese.
4. As you can see, I agree with you that there is definitely a political process going on, and that there are positive signals all over Lebanon. The National Dialogue, even if flawed, still contained positive results. The public uproar at the assassinations last year show that large parts of the society are not willing to accept such barbaric methods and cannot and will not be silenced. I just hope that you will manage to define a National Agenda containing a national interest as soon as possible, because the forces not interested in the open and multireligious and multicultural nature of Lebanon do not move in the restrictive frame of a Lebanese state, as the recent war showed.
Why are you guys talking about Germany, or any other Europeans, as if whatever EUropeans did might work for you?
Hezbollah will be your death. You're attempting to bargain with the devil.
I said it a year and a half ago on this blog, and I said it again last December in this thread:
A Realist Look - Lebanon Cornered
You guys should listen to me. I am the infamous Programmer Craig. And also I'm psychic. And also I let Hani G live long enough that he could realize I was right all along and he was an idiot. I'm nice that way. Kinda pseudo-magnanimous.
@craig
If you want to understand yourself and what you face, stop looking at your fingernails and start looking out of the window. It would be stupid not look to other places like Germany (Federalism) or India (Religious co-existance with democratic structures) if there might be solutions offered. This is true for any country, anywhere, not just for Lebanon.
this is becoming very abstract.. would be keen to hear some more concrete thoughts on how you guys think your country should evolve as of this point..
my personal preference being of course that it be a manner that is conducive to regional stability and peace..
lirun
telaviv
www.emspeace.blogspot.com
bad vilbel,
you're wrong about the political process. Lebanon's formal political process requires simple majorities. informal political "customs" (for lack of a better term) require plural majorities, and preferably consensus-based decisions. Hizballah raised a huge stink when the cabinet voted on certain issues, but the votes went through, and Hizballah eventually accepted them. That precedent indicates that the formal processes do work, and it is only a matter of the politicians deciding to use them! The precedent also points to the biggest danger: that parties within the system refuse to accept the output of the process, and in doing so, challenge its very legitimacy. What I say to these people is: the process ain't perfect, and definitely needs improvement; but challenging its legitimacy and trying to impose your will outside of it is a recipe for disaster.
kach,
thanks for the long response. you definitely know a lot about lebanon and I appreciate your ideas - yalla, go get that A380 up and flying!
Raja,
You make a good point. I did not differentiate between the "customs" and the actual political process as it is defined in our constitution.
However, I would argue that in reality, what is applied today is the customs, almost to the point of where the customs have BECOME the process.
Hell, our constitution doesn't stipulate that our President should be Maronite. But we all know that he is.
So to me, talking about abstract "processes" that no one even remembers is kinda moot. I'm far more interested in dealing with the "customs". And in that sense, our leaders need to stop trying to accomodate everyone in the name of the "make everyone happy" concensus custom, and start ruling through the rule of the majority, with Lebanon's national interests at heart (as opposed to various "customary" causes and ideals, such as pan-arabism, for example).
why discuss, thanks for your recomendation. Now why don't you go to Lebanon and help realize it?
There is a difference between plural majorities and homogenous majorities. And Lebanon, if anything, is defined by plurality. You should get that through your skull.
Hi, I'll add a couple thoughts. They aren't specific solutions, but may spark ideas --
- Bad Vilbil talked about how in a democracy the minority sometimes has to tolerate the majority decision. While true, another aspect of elected officials is that sometimes they support a minority opinion & the majority has to put up with it. This is especially true in foreign policy & other areas where they are more knowledgeable than most.
- What makes the pluracy in the U.S. work includes the early learning (brainwashing) about the virtues of freedom & the myths (even when true) of how our country was formed to support freedoms and how especially great it is to have all this opportunity. Rhetoric does help make individuals & groups more supportive of the whole & of patriotrism than they would be otherwise. It's not until later that we find out that not everything was so very good all the time.
- The rallying cry at the moment seems to be sovernity & the self-control of it. Legistation to limit representative's behavior outside of gv't may be needed. In the U.S. Nasralla would be going to jail. He acted outside the checks & balances of the democracy regardless of his reasons. Lebanon seems to still be deciding who's in charge, the individual groups, or the nation. Even if legislation isn't passed, a bringing up & discussion of it in the legislature can create that "rhetoric" of "nation" that's needed.
(It has also crossed my mine with Bush that the U.S. needs more control over it's executive branch's foreign policy behaviour. There's been too many instances of decisions made behind closed doors that supported the wrong g'vts for the wrong reasons. I don't know how long it will take for americans to wake up to that fully, but it's getting hot here.)
Very interesting & informative blogs.
Peace,
Cheri
From a sytemic point of view, Lebanon has one problem:
The Lebanese constitution was heavily influenced by the French one, and the Lebanese image of statehood, which at that time was more Maronite than anything else, also was under the influence of French concepts and ideas.
Now, the French have a tradition of founding new Republics, and they currently have a hybrid system between a parliamentary and a presidential democracy, difficult to implement and very 'French'.
Maybe it would be time to look at Switzerland. Of course you can never just transfer a political system from one country to another, as the political culture is always the base and is the soul, for the lack of a better term, of each state. For instance, Ethiopia, believe it or not, has one of the most modern constitutions world-wride, with the whole 9 yards in protection of minorities, religious respect, individual freedoms, etc. But Ethipia is not exactly a shining beacon of democratic values right now...Somalia is a similar case, but practically the country stopped existing in 1991.
The Swiss have a centuries old tradition of a consensus-based democracy, although women weren't allowed to vote until the 1970s...but the basic ideas are there...
fearless,
those articles were not relevant to this entry. invite us to your blog, where we can read whatever it is you would like to bring to our attention.
thanks.
a beirut based friend of mine son of a muslim man and christian lady tried to convince me that many "beiruters" (not sure what the name is) are of mixed heritage and that it is rapidly becoming irrelevant.. would love the thoughts of people on this forum
I can't really add to the conversation regarding what Lebanon needs or what path it should take to achieve its objectives....But my question stems from the constant spelling of **Hezbollah** as *Hizballah*... Isn't that considered derogatory? Just curious since you are seeking to, at the least, come to a consensus within Lebanon which would include a large number of Hezbollah, no?
Nothing derogatory about "Hizballah". That's how it's pronounced in "spoken" Lebanese.
The "proper" (i.e. written) version would probably be spelled Hizbullah.
Hezbollah is actually pretty much wrong. But that's what the "western" media uses for the most part.
Post a Comment