Sectarianism and Democracy Do Not Mix. Don't Kid Yourself.

If two opposing sides are fighting each other with all what they have in order to control a major corporation then the uncertainty and the instability that their acts generate demoralizes most of the employees and the valuation in addition to the performance of the corporation in question plummets. A white knight comes to the rescue in the eleventh hour by getting the two parties to stop their feuding based on the principle of “equal shares” or “monasafah” as it is called in Arabic.

That was a very positive step to end the hemorrhage and save the patient from a certain death. Yet this solution could not be expected to last. At best it was a stop gap measure in an effort to allow the corporation to recuperate. You see one side to the conflict represents 60% of the capitalization while the other one represents only a 40% share that is continuing to decline. The funny thing about this settlement is that the side that represents only 40% of the capitalization continues to act as if it is the single most important element for the survival of the enterprise in question and claims that it is the only democratic group in this fight. Note the irony, those that represent only 40% of the capital insists on a board that offers them equal power to those that represent 60% and they threaten that if this is not done then that would be a gross violation of all democratic principles.

If a case similar to the above is ever presented to an MBA class anywhere in the world the solution would be simple and straight forward. All share holders should act in such a way as to enhance value for other shareholders and not only a specific group since that would be discriminatory. The solution would simply be to let those that are the most qualified to run the show. If that is true of a corporation then why not a country? Lebanon is the equivalent of the above hypothetical corporation that is struggling for survival and that is looking for a way out of this constant meaningless conflict between these two groups.

The Lebanese Christian parties, all of them, have been very disingenuous. They claim democratic principles but yet they insist that their coreligionists are more important than others. This is reminiscent of 1984 where all are equal but yet some are more equal than others. Why is it so difficult for the Lebanese Christian politicians and the Lebanese clergy, Bkirki in particular, to note the great contradiction between asking for “monasafah” and yet calling that democratic. Whether it is the Patriarch, Gemayel , Geagea or any of the others they must know that what they are calling for is not fair, it is arrogant, it is divisive and it is based on the principle that Christians are more important than others.

Do the Christian leaders have a reason to fear their potential partners? Base on the extremist language that gets all the headlines, maybe they do. Yet the answer to their fears is not to try and perpetuate a backward system but to instead seek a real and a meaningful solution whereby all stakeholders would compete on a level playing field that does not take religious affiliation into consideration. Lebanon has a golden opportunity to face head on what it has been avoiding for over twenty years. Give the various religious communities a Senate but have the Chamber of Deputies run on only merit. Let us show faith that no Lebanese will favour policies that would benefit only her coreligionists but will instead support that which is good for the commonwealth. It is time that all Lebanese come together to eliminate fear and suspicion and to act for the good of the country. There is still time to do this and there is no need for a phase in. Let us go ahead and allow any Lebanese citizen to run for a seat in the Chamber of deputies anywhere in the country and let us divide the state into 128 different districts. Taif mandates this, it is good for us and we must go ahead and do the right thing. Nothing short of this is worthwhile. If we fail to do this then we have no one to blame but ourselves.

And finally let us be reminded that equality of citizenship is sort of meaningless if potentially our best are not allowed to seek certain offices for no reason besides the fact that when they were born they were registered as belonging to this sect or that. What if one decides to reject all sects? Does she then lose her citizenship? I should hope not. That is why there are two hugely important litmus tests about whether we are mature enough to reject sectarianism: civil marriage and citizenship to the children of a Lebanese mother. Let us not pretend that we are what we are not. No democracy can exist without civil marriage and no democracy can exist without total gender equality. If we cannot deal with these relatively easy issues then why should we expect a solution to what has been the bane of Lebanon since its inception: political sectarianism. Mr. Mikati has even refused to consider looking into the possibility of adopting a civil marriage law. How disappointing and how hypocritical. Should we really expect Mr. Mikati to be able to handle the thorny issue of eliminating in one swoop, once and for all, political sectarianism? Of course not.

• Debt settlement services
• Payday loan settlement
• On

Lebanon: A State For the Elite and by the Elite

Ever since its creation Lebanon has failed to depart significantly from the general understanding that its Zouama (elites) had agreed upon. Lebanon is rather unique in this regard; the general public has never played a major role either in its creation nor during any role of its subsequent development.

The idea of a nation state is foreign to this part of the world. Maybe that is one reason that the Middle East has failed to give rise to a single functioning democracy since the end of WWI i.e. the dismembering of the Old Man of Europe. The defeat of the Ottoman Turks gave rise, under European urgings, to the creation of nation states, although none of the inhabitants either believed in the concept or even understood it. It was that imported idea that led the French to create Grand Liban in 1920 by preaching separateness between the Christians of Lebanon and the Moslems of Syria. The French were not acting on behalf of the Lebanese masses but simply a few religious leaders and local zaims.

Even the semi sacrosanct National Covenant of 1943 which is the understanding that came up with the idea that the President is to be a Maronite, the PM a Sunni and the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies a Shia had no input from the general Lebanese citizenry. The Zoama decided about the shape of what is to be and the populace had no say whatsoever in the arrangement.

Even after the quintessentially Lebanese solution at the end of the Maronite hegemony ,that ended with the civil war, the system of governance that became operable, until this writing, was the agreement worked out at Taif between the feuding war lords. Unfortunately that was another major chapter in Lebanese history that was decided solely by the same zoama that had essentially been responsible for the National Pact. Taif was a “solution” by the same elites who had refused to allow the common people to have a say both in the creation of the state, its constitution or it’s National Pact. Taif was a proposal by the elites and for the elites.

An alien idea for a nation state based on the rather novel sectarian concept was used by those in power to further their own narrow selfish interests and appear to have managed to keep their grip on the state since its inception till the Taif and beyond. This includes the Doha arrangement, and the few fiascos that have given Lebanon its failed attempts since 2005 to form an effective government.

Albert Einstein once said that it is irrational to keep doing the same thing over and over again but to expect a different result. That has been the major Lebanese failing. Governance is based on a flawed model and the mistake is compounded by preventing the public from participating in the determination of its destiny. The Lebanese elite do not trust us, the commoners, since they believe that they know what is good for us. All what we have to do is play our role as sheep. They will take care of the rest.

Until we the people decide that we have had enough abuse then the Lebanese tragedy/comedy will continue going round and round in a vicious circle. Do you think that we can surprise them next year? I am not betting on it.

Why Does Lebanon Pretend To Have a Presidential System?

Quick, can you name the presidents of the following countries: Germany, Italy, Turkey, Iraq, Israel and Lebanon? Don’t feel bad if you could not name any, besides Suleiman of Lebanon, since very few people know who these individuals are and for a good reason. In parliamentary systems the head of state, a president in republics, is merely a figure head. Presidents are symbols who perform ceremonial functions but play no role in the actual decision making of the government.

Lebanon has been effectively transformed from a Presidential system, similar to that of the US, Russia and France, into a parliamentary system but someone has forgotten to tell the Lebanese about that. The daily news media, both print and TV, insist on showing the comings and goings of the president and cover his every move and utterance when in fact he has no executive or legislative power of any capacity.
Obviously the legislative power resides in the 128 members of the Chamber of Deputies and the Prime Minister heads the council of Ministers where the executive power lies. Although the president names a Prime Minister to form the cabinet he is bound by the results of the consultations that he holds with the MP’s. The cabinet once formed needs to gain the support of the Chamber of Deputies otherwise it will have to be dissolved. The president cannot on his own initiative dissolve the cabinet neither can he object to or veto the decision by the Chamber of Deputies.


If the President has no executive power, cannot appoint his Prime Minister, is not allowed to dissolve the cabinet or to introduce laws then what can he do? The Presidential prerogatives are limited to 3 areas:

(1) He is the commander in chief which could at times of national emergencies be an important function but not when private militias are stronger than the official armed forces.
(2) Foreign ambassadors present their credentials to the president
(3) The president is allowed to issue pardons by Decree

There is nothing wrong in having a parliamentary system of governance but what is strange is when both the public and the government officials insist on pretending that this is not the case. It is difficult to believe that MP’s and cabinet members are not aware of the constitutional limitations on the power of the presidency which then begs the question why the pretense? The only possible answer to this question rests on the sectarian divide that the country uses for the allocation of its political offices. Technically the Shia community gets to control the legislative branch through the position of the speaker, the Sunni community takes control of the executive side through the Prime Minister and the Maronites get a figurehead although no one wants to call it that.

Well, the emperor has no clothes. Lebanon has a parliamentarian system of government and the president performs only ceremonial functions. Let’s get used to that and stop treating this office as being what it is not. Enough meaningless stories about what president Suleiman did or did not do. Let us tell it like it is. A dynamic democracy can thrive and do well under parliamentary governance. What is egregiously wrong with the Lebanese system is the sectarian allocation of governmental positions in a totally unconstitutional manner.

Elimination of Sectarianism Revisited

Those who persist in criticizing Speaker Berri and President Suleiman for their plan to implement the Taef accords ought to be reminded of the saying: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
The well orchestrated attacks on the Berri-Suleiman plan can best be described as disingenuous, close minded and even bigoted. Political confessionalism is a misguided idea that has been gnawing at the Lebanese body politic ever since the establishment of the state 66 years ago. This idea of using the personal attribute of religion as the single factor for preventing a citizen from seeking a public office and many other civil service jobs is discriminatory, inefficient, harmful and egregious. One can even blame this single idea for most of the domestic tragedies that have consumed Lebanon in 1958, the 15 year civil war in addition to all the other social ills and inequities.
Speaker Berri ought to be commended for agreeing to spearhead the call by President Suleiman to take steps in order to implement the Taef accords that have stopped the Lebanese hemorrhaging over 15 years ago by demanding the creation of a bi cameral parliament and the total abolishing of political sectarianism all across the political sphere. Mr. Berris’ call to establish a commission whose only charge is to study and recommend steps to phase out this most destructive of all practices in the Lebanese political system must be seen in its true historical context. It is simply a call to do what all the Lebanese parties have agreed to do 15 years ago but have always found an excuse to carry on business as usual.
Unfortunately it is these same procrastinators who have risen to challenge Speaker Berri for daring to remind them of their duties and their commitments. Obviously one should not expect those that have benefited from an arrangement to go ahead and cheer on its demise but it is important to remember that when such institutions, organizations and individuals act as obstructionists and obfuscators they are doing so for very selfish reasons. Sure they would try to rationalize their demagoguery as if they are driven by love of country when in effect their only intention all throughout the decades has been preserving their preferred status. The logic and irrationality used by Patriarch Sfeir in order to prevent this hugely important and crucial step from becoming realized boggles the mind. How can we explain to our children that 35-40% of the population is entitled to 50% of the parliamentary seats or that a bright young educated Shiite woman cannot become a prime minister for no fault of her own besides the fact that she was born on the wrong side of the track so to speak.
It should not be too difficult to understand that any form of discrimination, racial, ethnic or religious is just as bad as any other form of discrimination based on gender, sexual preferences or the colour of ones eyes. Patriarch Sfeir makes an excellent point when he says that it is important to eliminate sectarianism from the inner soul of individuals. That would be a tremendous accomplishment but to use the need to create a perfect state made of saints sounds as an excuse to derail badly needed reform efforts is unconscionable. Society has a duty to set laws and regulations that would enhance the common good and citizens have the right to disagree with such laws but must obey them while they are in effect. Anti discrimination laws do not mean by any stretch that we have eliminated bigotry but it means that it would be illegal to act upon it.
President Suleiman and Speaker Berri need all our support in order to proceed with this project upon whose completion the future of the state rests. (Prior to this initiative the author has been a vocal critic and an opponent of both Mr. Berri and Mr. Suleiman).

Sophistry and Demagogy

Sa’ad Hariri, the designate premier, deserves credit for having finally, after 11 weeks, submitted a proposed Lebanese cabinet along the lines of 15-10-5. Fifteen members from the majority coalition of March14, 10 members from the opposition coalition led by Hezbollah and 5 cabinet portfolios for the president of the republic. The credit is however to be tempered by some criticism for not having taken this decisive step earlier and for encouraging the opposition to proceed in its meaningless and destructive obstructionism. They have allowed and encouraged to make one impossible and illogical demand after the next for years.
There is only one word to explain clearly and objectively the tactics of the opposition, it is simply demagoguery. That is best explained as a political argument that is constructed on half truths, straw men and logical fallacies. Actually H. L. Mencken, the American author might have said it best when he explained that “a demagogue is one who preaches doctrines that he knows to be untrue to (men) he knows to be idiots”. Their whole argument for presenting formidable nonsensical barriers to prevent the formation of a cabinet rests on such flimsy arguments that a government of one colour would be disastrous to the country. What they conveniently neglect to point to is that practically all governments all over the world are cabinets of one colour and furthermore that the ruling coalitions in many cases does not have much more than a 51-52%% majority. Could it be that in this case Lebanon is different since they (the opposition) are motivated only by a personal power grab? The man who would be king has no clue what democracy is and what is the meaning of checks and balances. Another example of pure demagogy is the claim that if the opposition is not given the right to dictate the terms for their invitation to join the cabinet then the Christians will be misrepresented. Sectarianism is the refuge of scoundrels, to borrow a phrase. It is as if one is arguing that say a British Labour Cabinet is an act of discrimination against the Conservatives and what is even worse it is a hidden argument to perpetuate sectarianism, the bane of all what is wrong in the Lebanese political system. To put the demands of the opposition in a simple straight forward analogy, their insupportable obstacles are not any different than when you invite a person to dinner and give that person a say about the menu and the time of service but you are told in no uncertain terms that you will not be allowed to hold your planned dinner without their attendance and that they will agree to accept the invitation only if you fire your staff and hire theirs. What logic, what chutzpah what demagoguery!!
As this column has argued often, the Lebanese experiment is practically at the point of no return, a point of disintegration. It is the duty and the obligation of all those of good will to attempt to save the Lebanese entity and that starts with good governance that will not seek short term solutions by papering over seminal and major fault lines. Mr. Hariri has taken the first minor step in that direction. He must become more forceful in speaking directly to the Lebanese people and in asking the opposition to live up to their historical responsibility. Mr. Hariri has to take a stand for what is right, a stand for the integrity of the republic. He must form a cabinet that will govern effectively, take decisions that are purely in the Lebanese national interest, eliminate political sectarianism and promote a Lebanese identity that measures the worth of a person not by the method of prayer but by their knowledge of a particular area and the strength of their allegiance to law and order Everything else is demagoguery and will hasten going over the abyss.

A Rotten Electoral System

A presentation of any idea or model in any field will fall apart if it is not internally consistent. Although no one should take seriously models that suffer from very obvious logical flaws in their construction yet both of the major political factions in Lebanon appear to be robust despite the fact that each of them is built on very shaky logical foundations.
The upcoming Lebanese parliamentary elections are nothing else but a sham. The traditional politicians and power brokers have gamed the system to such an extent that even the EU and the Carter center have sent delegations to watch the elections and lend its results credibility. The recent leaked recording of the private discussions at Walid Jumblatts residence reveal a sorry state of affairs where Mr. Jumblatt describes the process of forming lists of candidates in some regions as if he was a Godfather running the operations of the family or syndicate. Yes, at some moments he was reflective but in the style of a sixteenth century feudal lord. Although the press is not privy to the pronouncements of the other feudal lords I am certain that the language of Nabih Berri, Hassan Nasrallah or Saad Hariri was much different. The elections in most of Lebanon are not elections at all and it is time for people of character and principle to say that the emperor has no clothes.
But even if one is to cast a blind eye on the utter lack of choice in most districts we will still be faced with the claim and counter claim of who is really democratic. The March 14 group has made it very clear that they will not give the opposition veto power again because that is not how the democratic game is played and they are right. But their case falls apart when one takes into consideration the fact that they are the strongest advocates of what they call the power sharing a la Taif agreement. That in essence is an understanding to give the Christian community in Lebanon half the parliamentary seats although it accounts at best for 35-40% of the vote and its share is continuously shrinking for demographic and political reasons; lower fertility rate and more immigration. But isn’t offering a block that amounts to 35-40% of the vote a disproportionate representation of 50% of the seats in the national assembly a form of veto power? Of course it is. Then what is the rationale of March 14 when it opposes the giving of the veto power to some but offers it willingly to others? The only explanation is self expediency and logic and principle be damned.
The inconsistency of the opposition is even more glaring. Hezbollah is willing to play the elections game in order to legitimize its essentially authoritarian and religious principles. They are not even willing to pay allegiance to the country in which they are expanding their fiefdom and control through the use of illegal weapons provide to them by a foreign power. They do not need to win any elections because they are already shaping the policies at the point of illegal guns. The elections for them is not the result of a belief in democratic principles which they oppose but it is a means to legitimizing their power grab for their foreign masters.
As the saying goes “Let there be pox on both of their houses”. This charade will not end well. It never does. Lebanon can redeem itself only if it is to adopt a modern electoral system that is non sectarian and that is not subject to the control of its political mafia. Lebanon needs to have elections of citizens by citizens without any regard to their religious practices because our current system is rotten to the core.