Democracy in the Middle East: Beirut, Lebanon, and the Need for a Constitution

Lee Smith reviews Brookings Institute scholar Kenneth Pollack's new book in Slate this week.

Smith argues, "The paradox is that one of our [America's] sharpest limitations is that we believe democracy is a universal cure-all, good for all people at all times, when that is almost certainly not the case."

Sadly, I agree, to a certain degree, with Smith.

Smith seems to believe that Arab culture and society are not prepared for democracy because Middle Eastern states do not exist. In countries that could be described as states, like in the Gulf, the countries are by no means liberal, and primarily operate through local familial connections. Their visa and citizenship requirements guarantee that the foreign working populations develop no long term attachments to their places of residence, or if they do, that they understand and abide by how the local system works.

Where I differ with Smith is in my idealism. I would like to believe that democracies are predicated on constitutions. The Arab nationalists of the 60s, and even many pro-Syrian and pro-Western Lebanese politicians today also believe this, which is why they argue so vehemently over government policy statements (as is happening in the Beirut Serail as I write).

Americans are not incorrect to believe in democracy. In some places, democracy is an easy fix to a constitutional/ governmental quandary. After the fall of the Soviet Union, many Central and Eastern European countries saw the value of joining their Western European brethren in a democratic community. Social networks and cultures crushed under the weight of Soviet oppression desired a panacea and found it in joining the democratic world and the European Union.

However, these people had an incentive to join. They had something to gain. The Soviet Union, on which they relied, failed, and they needed an immediate fix to their desperate problems. The United States and Europe came along.

Nothing is promised for democracies in the Middle East. If anything, the Lebanese example tells the Emirati that they are better off without a democratic system. Could they have done nearly as much in the last 20 years if they were like the Lebanese, a playground for regional actors, rife with corruption.

As MP Farid el-Khazen noted, in 1975 when Franco died, would Spain have become a functioning democracy if the countries around it were not? Would it have become a democracy if France was struggling with a civil war?

In the end, this post is more about Lebanon than Middle East democracy. This should not be surprising given that Lebanon is the only Arabic speaking Middle Eastern country with a heritage of democracy, regardless of how plagued and dissimilar to Western democracy it is.

The primary problem with Lebanon is that the Constitution is not applicable to the society it governs. The Francophone constitution represents a model in which one faction can rule benificently over minorities, from the center/ capital with no other form of representation. However, even the majority faction was divided when the Constitution came into being, and the minority was more of an opposition than a pliant recipient of majority good will.

Taef was not the solution for Lebanon. Lebanon is in need of a constitutional convention to re-evaluate the management of the country.

The end of foreign occupation of the country - which happened both in 2000 and 2005 - could have been a useful opportunity for such a discussion. However, in 2000 the occupation of only one party ended. In 2005, the occupation of another party ended, but the interests of that party remained.

Given the activities of foreign actors and foreign-allied actors in Lebanon (a senior member of Fatah was assassinated today in Ain el Helwe), this period is one of crisis, rather than a post-occupation calm, like that experienced in the United States, Eastern Europe, and many other post-Colonial democracies. Also unfortunate, is the fact that years of war entrenched warlords in power rather than enlightened warriors fighting for their people, not just for themselves.

President Sleiman will convene a national dialogue. Hopefully, something will come of it. If not, the hope of Lebanese nationalists, idealists, and supporters of Arab democracy will die.

The Middle East has been very good at murdering idealism and forcing individuals to conform to the tribal, sectarian rubrique.

We could be left with an international opinion about the Middle East similar to Smith's. If we want to support Lebanese democracy, now is the time to do it.

If we want war, there are far more interested parties willing to supply us with weapons than those willing to support our democratic gambit.