Towards A Non-Sectarian Lebanon
Bravo to Michael Young for advocating the abolition of Lebanon's sectarian system:
"Christians, particularly Maronites, have also believed that their salvation would come from a new president. Yet the infighting over the presidency has been so divisive that Syria has taken advantage of this to gradually re-impose its hegemony over Lebanon.For Christians to survive as a community, they must accept that the only way to do so is through reform of the confessional arrangement within the framework of Taif. This means abolishing sectarian quotas in Parliament before this becomes a demand Christians cannot deflect."
I like Young's conclusion, but I'm not sold on how he got there -- or whether his argument could conceivably have popular appeal among the non-Christian community. It is something of a paradox: in order to ensure the survival of their sectarian community, the Christians must advocate the abolition of sectarian privileges. It is less a cri de coeur for religious equality and liberal democracy than another political maneuver -- a tactical retreat designed to consolidate Christian influence due to unfavorable circumstances.
For this reason, I'm not sure how Young's argument could possibly influence a Sunni or Shia Lebanese to abolish sectarian quotas. The distribution of power is a zero-sum game: if the Christians would be better off with a non-sectarian system, that means that somebody else would be better under another system. Young's nightmare scenario of a system where Christians, Sunnis, and Shias each are represented by a third of the seats in Parliament would represent a windfall for the other two sects. Because he does not criticize sectarian confessionalism per se, his argument has limited relevance to a member of one of Lebanon's other sects.
Young has written much about the current struggle's implications for Lebanon's post civil-war power-sharing agreement, and I think he's right to be worried. In a deadlock primarily characterized by a Sunni-Shia confrontation, the Taef Accord's archaic provision of allotting 50% of Parliament's seats to "Muslims" does not reflect Lebanon's true political divide. When the dust clears, it will be clear that Lebanon's overarching problem is this gap between the power-sharing agreement in the Constitution and the reality on the ground. And anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Lebanese history remembers what happened the last time this was true.
Comments (2)
Why limit to the 3 major sects only? Which is technically incorrect, because it is 2 sects versus a religion (Sunni, Shia, vs Christians). It does not make much sense.
You can divide the seats equally between all 18 sects and the problem will remain as long as the tribal based mentalities are present.
Posted by Super Dude | December 21, 2007 4:39 PM
Posted on December 21, 2007 16:39
Interesting David. In fact, I touched on the subject with a relatively long post in october 2006: http://voicesonthewind.blogspot.com/2006/10/sectarianism-in-lebanon-threat-to.html,
and then again in a different light in dec 2006:
http://voicesonthewind.blogspot.com/2006/12/crosses-crescents-and-curse-of-lebanon.html
Of course the idea of secularism in Lebanon is an old but untried one so neither Young's article nor my posts offer anything significantly new even if the point is worth re-iterating.
However, to transcend the posts above a little bit... if longterm prosperity and stability is the goal for Lebanon then (broadly and loosely) there are only a few options. Federalism, Partition, Confessionalism (in its present state or a modified one) and Secularism.
Upon closer inspection, federalism is not an option because the different resulting states would have different ideologies and foreign policies, etc...
Partition may be an option but I doubt that it is implementable on the ground without a lot of bloodshed, present and future.
That leaves either confessionalism or secularism. The former has been tried and has failed miserably in at least 3 or 4 forms in the last 160 years. The latter has not been tried yet and is prescribed in Taif, which is supposedly a binding document.
Finally, if the Christians and the Druze submit that the only way to protect their religious identity, freedom, and longterm presence in Lebanon is to promote an atmosphere conducive to that, then it can only follow that they must turn to secularism as the only option. The next step of convincing the Sunnis and Shias should be easier than the first one, i.e., of getting the minorities to board the train, because it is clear that the minorities are the ones who will be making the short term concessions and the other sects making the gains.
Of course, it seems to me that everyone (i.e. every large sect) in Lebanon is playing for hegemony and nothing less despite all the talk of coexistance, constitutional and otherwise. That is probably why secularism for lebanon is not a ripe option yet.
Thanks for the space and sorry for the long post!!
Posted by R | December 21, 2007 9:17 PM
Posted on December 21, 2007 21:17