THE LEBANESE MANIFESTO: A CEDAR FOR ALL SEASONS
Talal Nizaneddin
The Daily Star
on_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=106621
Sept 18 2009
Lebanon
The perennial breakdown of the Lebanese political order has become
more than a tedious joke. On a human level the pain and the stress is
driving people to despair. Internationally, the sequence of Lebanese
crises threaten the region and beyond with an escalation toward an
Armageddon pitting one alliance of states against another. There has
to be change and this change can only come from within Lebanon itself.
The Cedar Revolution in 2005 promised a new Lebanon with a future to
fulfill the pent up expectations of so many lost years. Four years
later and hopes are rapidly evaporating after a turbulent period in
which the country endured phases of having no president, no parliament
and currently no government. Scattered doses of violence spilt blood
in the streets of Beirut and the mountains of the Chouf. In the
current situation, even if a government is formed, it will be yet
another stop-gap measure to delay yet another crisis. No country can
continue surviving this way, nor does it deserve to.
Martyrs of the Cedar Revolution sacrificed their lives for a Lebanon
that would enjoy sovereignty, freedom and independence. Currently,
of the three, only freedom remains to exist but it is holding on
barely by its fingertips. We are all in the dark in the pursuit of
justice through the international tribunal for Lebanon. The Chief
Prosecutor Judge Daniel Bellemare tells us that such ignorance is
our bliss and we are forced to believe him. Apparently betrayed by
France and later by the United States, the March 14 movement has
lost its way. The pressure has led to fragmentation, with one of its
original pillars, Walid Jumblatt, taking his Druze community out of
the coalition altogether under the pretext of group survival.
And so, the Lebanese wait once more for a solution to be imported
based on a settlement among bigger and stronger nations. Shamelessly,
some political leaders state this as if it is a natural state of
affairs. Self-inflicted impotence is not nature’s way by any stretch
of the imagination, unless you are Lebanese it seems.
In all this doom and gloom, dear reader, there is a way out
for Lebanon. This begins with honesty but without bitterness or
reprisals. This lays the groundwork for an intellectual revolution for
political changes to rescue Lebanon from its demise. I propose three
key tenets driving the Cedar Revolution and Lebanese thinking toward
withstanding all the tests and trials of nations and international
politics.
First, there must be a reassessment of cultural identity. The American,
French and Russian Revolutions all were based on an idea. The first
two survived successfully, despite counter-revolutions and turbulence,
because they were based on notions of justice and liberty linked to
national identity. While respecting the specificities of Lebanon’s
religious communities, the leaders of the Cedar Revolution should
ensure that ideals of liberty and justice should never be compromised
and they should not be afraid or ashamed to state it out loud. If
they cannot be achieved today, it can light a beacon of hope for
tomorrow’s generation.
The cultural identity of Lebanon needs also to sincerely recognize
the richness of diversity in the nation’s history. This means giving
due weight to its Canaanite origins and its multi-lingual road
toward the modern usage of Arabic. There was a nation with a rich
civilization here before Islam and Christianity, both of which are
great contributors to the modern Lebanon. Nonetheless, for millennia
the traits of this patch of land have not changed. Curiosity about the
outside world, interaction through trade and exploration, diversity,
freedom, community and an amazing self-confidence that does not fear
importing new technologies, arts and ideas from the East and West. This
is much unlike other great civilizations which based their greatness on
military conquest. The heavy emphasis on Arab identity represents only
a part of a much richer mosaic and unfairly alienates some Lebanese
constituents, most obviously the Armenians but also others.
Second, there is a need for a unique political representation
system. At the heart of the conflict in Lebanese politics is the
rivalry between the state and the communities and the struggle for
supremacy among them. The state can mean an undesirable authoritarian
rigid system in the way President Emile Lahoud attempted to assert
himself over communitarian leaders. But it can also represent the
opposite extreme, as the entity that protects the freedoms and rights
of the individual from the authoritarianism of the community or the
clan. However, eradicating the communities is not a solution because
it would undermine the unique features of Lebanon that justify its
existence.
The solution is a distinct communitarian democracy system in which
regardless of demographics, all communities, mainly based on sects,
vote directly for a strong President. The key here is that each
of the major communities receives a maximum share of the total
vote. Maintaining the 50-50 Muslim Christian division, on the Christian
side for example the Maronites count for 30 percent of the total,
Orthodox about 15 percent and other Christians would be allocated
the remainder. On the Muslim side Sunnis and Shiites would get 20
percent each and other Muslims would divide up the rest with the
Druze getting about 7 percent. A successful president would require
the largest sum of all the major allotted voting shares and cross
50 percent. This system would protect against a nationally unpopular
candidate even if s/he gets 100 percent of a community’s vote because
in the case of Sunni or Shiite voters it would only account for 20
percent of the total. This way, Lebanon can have a nationally and
directly elected popular Maronite president without upsetting the
sectarian framework of the country. As a balance, a vice presidency
for the Druze can be created as a message that the interests of the
smallest sects are represented in the state apparatus.
The new system would promote autonomous regional administration
in local affairs, including schools, hospitals and other social
services. Central government would be responsible for law and order,
administering a broad fiscal policy and foreign affairs. The central
government would also protect the right of those secularists who do
not feel comfortable in their communitarian setting. This includes
the right for a secular education and life-style. Communities must
respect the state as the state respects the communities.
Third, a new foreign policy thinking is required. Lebanon needs
a steel-cold pragmatism in its foreign policy that rejects
emotionalism. Relations with states must be based on national
interests, regardless of how near or far it is or if it is Arab
or Asiatic. This means rejecting the idea of special relationships
because of linguistic or religious ties. Syria is a very important
nation for Lebanon but only because it is a geographic neighbor and
relations should not be at expense of its own interests. Likewise,
the United States and the West in general are not natural enemies
of Lebanon. Lebanon should in fact look to joining the European
Union if it serves stabilization of its economy and its political
system. Lebanon has a moral responsibility to prioritize relations with
countries that share its values. Likewise, Lebanon has no interest
in peace with Israel until the Palestinian issue is resolved. One of
the chief reasons for this is that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon
should not be naturalized and this demands the promotion of a just
settlement to the Palestinian cause.
Talal Nizameddin is assistant student affairs dean at the American
University of Beirut.