Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Lebanon: Divided on the most basic level

I didn't grow up in Lebanon.
Neither did millions of other people of Lebanese descent. However, unlike them, I was educated in Lebanon and I currently live and work in Lebanon.

I may know about Lebanese history, geography, politics, television shows, music, and restaurants, but my relationship to this place is far different than the relationships my friends, co-workers, and relations have to this country.

Lebanon was never a rosy entity to me, but I always thought of it as a unified nation. I've lived amongst Lebanese in Europe, North America, Africa, and the Arabian Gulf, and got to see the similarities of Lebanese regardless of sect or ideology.

People in Lebanon speak about being "Lebanese," but the definitions change depending on who you talk to. Lebanese talk about the shared experiences of war and often add caveats about what happened in their location, but the each sect, region, and political entity had a very different experience.
I say this because I don't feel like I'm talking about the same country when I talk to friends who grew up in Jounieh and friends who grew up in Nabatieh (even though they are both French educated, ie they're both "Frenchies"). In fact, they don't really talk to each other.

The first time a friend from Achrafieh went with me to visit a cousin of mine in Bourj al Barajne, he told me he felt like he wasn't in Lebanon any more. Some friends from Metn dropping me off at home could not restrain themselves from saying, "It's not that bad over here," but then changed their tune when they saw the Murabitoun logo and flags sticking out.
I don't have many friends from Akkar, and the ones I do have are all related to Ahmad Fatfat, thus not exactly representative.
Relatives of mine in the Bekaa have the most libertarian attitude I've seen in Lebanon. They can't relate to all of the "gays" [their words, not mine] of every sect on the coast.

Many Lebanese think locally, even when they are trying to think nationally. It is hard for many of my friends to grasp the concept of one nation. Members of the Lebanese Forces think they get it, but just end up quoting Bachir over and over again not really caring about what anyone else has to say. Hezbollah claims to be national, but even their supporters know that the party has local interests in mind.

Our national unity has a long way to go. The lines of division run deep and cannot be solved by small political patches. The divide is much deeper that Red state/Blue state. We have things we agree on: nightclubs, beaches, fashion, singers, national boundaries, and indepence from Syria [many Hezbollah supporters agree on these issues, even if Hassan Nasrallah would never be caught on Monot and would never cheer Syria's departure].

We do not have a nation.


An aside: Gross over-generalization, but my observations
What is most odd is that many of the poor in Lebanon are internationally minded, while the elites navel-gaze.
The Egyptian elite are very outward looking. They are educated abroad, adopt Western values, and see themselves as cosmopolitan. The same goes for many Khalijis, and especially the Iraqis and Syrians.
My experience with the Lebanese and Jordanian elite who grew up in Lebanon and Jordan is that they remain locals in mentality - Lebanese more so than Jordanians.
Lebanese are concerned with competing with Lebanese. Egyptians think about Europe and American when they think about class. Lebanese think of other Lebanese.
As much as this breeds a circus of nose jobs, Lebanese elite are not left looking down on themselves. [To speak in unjustifiably general terms, some of the poor and middle class escape the trap because they see how ludicrous this behavior becomes. Of course, plenty just imitate].

6 comments:

Raja said...

LP,

I find this post to be very timely. In fact, it could be used as an answer to my lastest entry pertaining to "loyal oppositions." frankly, the way I interpreted what you wrote is that lebanese probably cannot come to an agreement on the "constitutional essentials" I alluded to that are necessary to have a constitutinal republic. Too many people seem to disagree on fundamental issues for there to be a unanimous consensus on one constitution.

Considering this situation, is it possible to come up with a constitution that stipulates that we all agree to disagree? A constitution that protects the rights of individuals and parties to disagree with each other? Looks very much like a liberal (i.e. plural) system to me! Maybe its not so bad....

Unfrozen Caveman Linguist said...

No, no noooo, that would be too much like federalism if everyone were entitled to their own opinion about how the constitution should look (said Caveman sarcastically). Personally, I don't really understand local resistance to federalism; at the very worst it's what you have already in Lebanon. I am no expert in constitutional law, but it seems that in order for a constitution to last more than a few decades in this day and age, it needs to be conceptualized and drafted in such a way as to be amendable. Power needs to be given to courts to interpret it, and legislators need to respect the validity of common interpretations when passing laws. If the constitution does not "live and breathe," so to speak - just like your society lives and breathes and changes over time - it becomes just another autocratic rulebook.

tryingtolearn said...

Good Afternoon,
I wrote the Gustov a few minutes ago and asked him to give me his thoiughts about the impending release of the UN report on the assassination of former Prime Minister Harari. As you can see from my blog, I'm trying my best to get caught up on the foreign relations and international studies. Any thoughts or impressions you could give me about the potential impact of the report would be great.

Vox Populi - Agent Provocateur said...

I just noticed that there's no Cedar-guardian anymore, there's a Gustave. Is it the same guy?

Vox Populi - Agent Provocateur said...

Raja, we agree on parliamentary politics, democracy and human rights. We might disagree on the organization of the state but we agree on the values of this state and that's already a lot.

Unfrozen caveman, you can't understand the resistance to federalism. It's emotional, and you can't feel it as a foreigner. It's primarily because Lebanese (or Arabs) get excited about living in a bigger entity, like a pan-arab or a pan-islamist state. They have a feeling of helplessness because they are weak and always look for a bigger thing. It sounds dumb, but this is reality.

Most people will tell you that a federation could amplify sectarian divisions. This is not true and apart for a few exceptions it’s not the real reason behind the anti-federalism. The real reason is emotional: they refuse to renounce to the Arabic or Islamic Empire, and feel that the Lebanese Christians are 'conquered', whether they like it or not. You can blame mentality and education for this: from the moment they are born, people are fed with a 'unity' myth that doesn't correspond to anything. Apart for a few exception, anti-federalist can be equated with jingoist.


Tony Badran who (I think) opposes a federation said this one month ago:

a Lebanese identity has indeed emerged, and it's one based on the pluralism of the various sects, not based on denying them or fighting them. In other words, the two are not mutually exclusive. That is the lie of Arabism and romantic nationalism. A state is a contract, not an organic Volk. Syria needs a new contract.

Tony Badran is the only guy on the blogosphere who really thought about an alternative to the federation and prefer another system which is a consensual democracy - something that does not exist and never existed in Lebanon, don't be fooled by the official discourse.

My problem with consensual democracy is that it relies too much on the good will of the other party, see the Hezbollah and their weapons. Because of History I don't trust the human and the Lebanese nature, this is why I am pro-federation. Nevertheless, consensual democracy can be better than a federation in some cases. Nevertheless, if Anton is an anti-federalist (I am not 100% sure), he's the only one who have seriously thought about an alternative political system on the blogosphere.

I am not saying that the federation is better than consensualism in every aspect. Even the LF don't have a clear position on this issue. One thing is certain though, the current Lebanese state does not work well. It needs to be reformed, but now is too soon.

Unfrozen Caveman Linguist said...

Tony B is right - the state is a contract; it is enforceable by a central government that has two choices in how it can rule. One, it can rule from the top-down, in which case it doesn't care if lesser parties and organizations accept it or not, hence oppression and corruption become the norm. Or two, it can rule from the bottom-up, in which case a federal government, no less powerful in reality and on paper than the aforementioned, delegates its responsibilities to the lowest possible levels, thereby empowering its constituents and making them part of that greater entity. Of course, the preferable contract is the second one, but naturally its acceptance by all parties gives it a kind of "lowest common denominator" characteristic, but there is nothing wrong with that. As far as the difference between consociationalism and federalism, at least for a state the size of Lebanon, it seems to me that in practice this discussion would appear too dogmatic to have real meaning. You may as well discuss the number of angels that can dance on the head of Telly Savales or something like that.

What I never hear discussed but feel may be the truth is that a pan-Arab state would probably not enfranchise Arabs any more than they already are enfranchised under their own individual governments - for example, did the Ottoman Empire do that for Muslims? No, in fact an autocratic central authority only guaranteed deeper fault lines in the end by forcing an artificial "togetherness." Perhaps its best to make everyone clean their own back yards before deciding to build that superhighway linking them all together.

Okay, I've rambled enough. Excellent post, LP, by the way. Good food for thought.