Numerous are the proposals and projects – solutions that have been proposed
in Lebanon in an attempt to build the state of Lebanon and bring to an end
its internal strife.
Antoine Najem, one of Lebanon's foremost intellectuals and authorities on
the composition of Lebanon's society and who proposed a project – solution
(formula) along with a team of researchers are representative of a large and
wide section of Lebanese who considered that federalism is a logical
solution to the internal strife gripping Lebanon.
In this article we will present briefly why federalism forms the basis of a
logical and achievable solution according to the opinion of Antoine Najem
and his fellow intellectuals. The necessity for such a solution or formula
has developed as a result of the historical, social and political
experiences in Lebanon.
As a fundamental starting point Antoine Najem considers that an object,
rational and direct examination and understanding of the nature of Lebanon's
regime rather than an ideological comparison is necessary. Such as process
will best highlight the real nature of the political community and hence,
forms the basis for the essential and appropriate foundations that will
allow for the development of the Regime through its internal dynamism and
interaction
Antoine Najem begins by focusing on the reality of the Lebanese experience
and examines the solutions or formulas adopted in the past and he regards
these formulas, beginning with the princedoms through the structural formula
of 1943 and including the Ottoman ERA 'Motasarafiyeh', as having failed to
eliminate the enduring internal problems because, in affect, these formulas
ignored these fundamental problems and the result of such blunders were
violent explosions leading to bloodbaths and wars and whose consequences
proved to be catastrophic, extinguishing the coexistence between the various
religious communities and wrecking Lebanon's single and unified
administration and its existence and composition. In fact one of the basic
deficiencies in the political solutions offered was disregard for the
distinct features and privileges of each of the communities within Lebanon
when each of these communities continues to insist on maintaining and
preserving their distinctive characteristics and privileges be their
ideological, political, institutional and administrative and this also in
light of the fact that each community also insisted on emphasising and
highlighting these features at every opportunity. Therefore, this
ideological superficial façade met with its ultimate destiny, crumbling
because it attempting to build a centralised system of government based upon
the myth that a unified single culture society exist in Lebanon.
Lebanon today is faced with more than one possible alternative for solving
its internal problems:
1. Partitioning which will see community seek independence from the other
in a separate political Regime and geographic existence.
2. Or the return of the spirit of 1943 structural formula which means
returning to the original starting point of the problem and hence, a
repetition of the internal strife and violence.
3. Or the creation of a Federal Regime, an option which the Lebanese have
not yet experimented with genuinely despite the fact that several
indictors within the real nature of Lebanon's society converge in that
direction.
With these options before us and the repetition cycle of violence and failed
formulas and solutions indicted, it appears that federalism is the best
available option open to us considering that the other options include
partitioning , domination by one group over another and the perilous and
violence ridden centralised Regime.
Federalism, even though it might not bring to a conclusion the problems
associated with the composition of the administration and the differences
between then religious communities, it does however address the urgent needs
of the existing problem. And this is basically a recogition officially and
institutionally of the presence of two Lebanese groups, each with their
unique and distinctive characteristics and values. This recognition must
also extend to allow these groups to freely organise and arrange their
presence and to develop it in an atmosphere free or devoid of external
interference. The fulfillment of such terms will contribute positively and
allow for the relaxation of the relationship between the religious
communities because it will remove from the network of this relationship the
factor of political tension and suspicious which is caused initially by the
possibility of one group having the opportunity to interfere and intervene
in the autonomous affairs of the other and visa versa. Also removal will be
the real danger or potential danger facing the existence of all members of
each community,
be this danger genuine or mythical that a community feels
threatens it identity or it uniqueness.
On the institutional front federalism presents a logical response to the
reality of the historical, social and ideological aspects of the religious
communities, thus ending the prevailing divide in Lebanon between society
and state.
Federalism offers the better alternative and the more stable of the solution
for the establishment of ties and a workable equation between the religious
communities and the state. The existing relationship depends on relies upon
an ideological format racked by problems and conflict where each religious
community projects an impression of elitism and a superiority complex over
the other religious communities, and such a step up leads to repeated cases
of confrontation as well as to a format where domination and assimilation
are a concern and each community feels it is imperative for it to defend
itself against domination and or assimilation, hence, the ensuring outcome
is that the state becomes a stage for continuous conflict.
In relation to this area of concern, federalism reduces friction and the
level of confrontation relieving the state to a large extent from these
negative factors by eliminating a number of the elements that trigger
conflict and explosive situations within it and upon it.
Federalism presents a logical redress to the 1943 formula beginning with the
identification of the attributes associated with the real nature of society.
In other words, federalism removes the contradictions existing between the
unifying 1943 National Accord and the Constitutional and political Regime of
the 1943 State, this by returning the political and administrative
institutions of their rightful place by taking into consideration the real
nature of society.
By assuming such a line of thought additional experiences of suffering can
be avoided and appalling mistakes committed in the approaches adopted will
not be repeated. In fact, the experiences of the existing situation present
the strongest justification and the most important reason in the search for
a new or alternative political regime.
Then, the problem associated with planning a new political regime is not one
of a technical rewriting of the Constitution as occurred with the Taif
Agreement and others of a similar nature. The problem is, however, related
to the autonomous existence of each of the Christian and Moslem communities
and their desire and will to establish a joint existence with the other and
to develop this existence mutually. From here then, a successful political
regime is one which is founded upon a will which unites the citizens and
upon institutions that will organise this existence without denying the
religious communities their autonomous existence.
And in regards to the factors that justify and assist in the creation of a
federal regime in Lebanon, Antoine Najem considers that the implementation
of federalism in Lebanon is conditional upon the availability of some
essential factors that justify the establishment of a federal system and
assist in its formation.
There is firstly the dual composition of the Lebanese Society i.e the
presence of two groups unique and distinctive in their identities, cultures,
history, regimes and customs.
There is also the matter of each group populating various geographic
locations or enclaves which are limited in number, and to a certain extent,
the similarity between the identity of the population in each geographic
pocket and the identity of the land is exact.
There also exists common interests and unbending and non-compromisable
convictions between the two groups and these form the essential foundation
and pre-condition for establishing the state and political regime.
The most important of these interests – convictions: the unanimous desire of
the groups to establish the state especially in regards to t he mutual
interests they hold in the relationship of coexistence and their agreement
upon the notion of organising this existence politically as well as the
agreement by both groups to acknowledge the platform of privileges, equality
and freedom and its relevance to each group.
There are specific factors , undoubtedly, that must be sufficiently present
on the organisational front such as founding principles which are considered
vital in order for this Regime to be realised and the most important are:
1. The principle of sovereign autonomy for each group i.e each group must
have the authority to independently self-determine its own affairs through
a self governing body that organises its own authorities and allocates
responsibilities and oversees the administration of its group or
community.
2. The principle of the structured sovereignty of the State i.e each group
has the benefit of an authority that exercises sovereignty when dealing
with a political decision of the federal State, and if this decision is
opposed by the group then it can not be implemented and likewise for a
decision to be implemented, the participation of the group in the decision
making is absolutely essential as a condition for the decision to be
carried.
3. Duplication of the infrastructures of the institutions of the State
including the regional, the legislative, executive, judicial and federal
infrastructure.
4. The structured infrastructure of the federal institutions is a
reflection of the principle of structured sovereignty where the group or
community is represented by regarding it as a single political entity
within the legislative, executive and federal institution.
5. A geographic division on the basis of areas dominated or inhabitant
predominantly by a particular religious group, the organisational of the
regional authorities is achieved according to the geographic basis of
these areas.
The federal regime must take into considerations most of the factors and
conditions. Essential for the founding of federal system from around the
world with special attention to be paid to some of the unique and
distinctive characteristic of the Lebanese reality.
Of these distinctive and unique characteristics, the concerns of the
Religious Community and its needs in relation to the issues of existence,
culture, education, self-identify, personal status, financial needs, growth
and development. These are concerns that quite often prevail over the
demands required for co-existence and extent beyond the boundaries of the
political regime. Also of concern the geographic mingling between the
religious communities within a number of areas in Lebanon which resulted
originally from Christian migration to all parts of Lebanon their
settlements in those geographic locations and subsequent mixing with the
Moslem- Sunnis, Shittes, drupe-populations, the consequences of such
migration and intermingling are
difficulties and challenges associated
with dividing the land geographically according to concentrations of
particular communities and organizing the institutions and guarantees that
protect the right of the individual and group.
And on the obstacles that obstruct the founding of a federal regime in
Lebanon, Antoine Najem says:
The federal regime in Lebanon, from an objective point of view, is the
better of the systems available and provides a solution to the existing
confrontationalist reality, however, implementing this regime will be
resisted by obstacles and faces stifling opposition. It is possible to draw
the boundaries of these difficulties and challenges in the following manner:
1- The absence of a unanimous endorsement of this form of regime i.e.
those Christians in favor of the 1943 structural formula are still
bargaining on the traditional understanding of co-existence and its
constitutional and political in terpretation within a single unified
centralized state. The taif accord was translated into constitutional
changes and endorsed officially by the President of the republic on 21
September 1990. And with the Islamic community, the focus of their
ideology is based upon the concept of the single nature of Lebanese
society. This concept is expressed politically by the concept of the
centralized state that is built upon the notion of the single nature of
the land, the people, and the institutions. For this reason they view the
proposal of the federal regime as being a proposal for the partitioning
and dismemberment of society and state in Lebanon. Arab thought in general
is wary of and does not encourage the acceptance of thelogic of pluralism,
which, in essence, will obliterate the accepted notion of a single natured
and nationalistic Arab society from its very roots. As a result of this
logic Arabs continue to confront the problem of assimilating minorities
within by resorting to military means as an accepted method for resolving
these issues or matters.
2- The current and continuous disputes existing within inter-community
relationships with a rose from deeply rooted conflict around three
fundamental matters of contention and these actually form the basis of the
matters of common interest and would fall under the jurisdiction of the
federal authorities, and it is such matters that require they be solved by
all religious communities participating in the regime through a unanimous
agreement.
The ' identity ' of Lebanon still provides the central point of contention
and dispute, despite the fact that in accordance with the taif accord, the
constitution was altered to incorporate the view that Lebanon is Arab in
both its membership and identify. This matter is centered around a
fundamental subject: Will Lebanon follow the direction desired by the
Moslems and become a permanent and inseparable member of the Arab world or
will Lebanon retain a special and unique existence that is distinctive
from its surrounds as how the Christians would like to see Lebanon?
Branching from this dispute are other disputes, several in number and also
very basic.
The subject of Lebanon's foreign relationships and ties is linked
fundamentally to the problem of determining its identity. This subject
assumes a specially contentious issue because of the presence of Israel in
a land considered by the Islamic Arabs world as being Arab and Islamic
land and, because this presence also places upon Lebanon the burden of
assuming a direct and clear stance on the issue. The Lebanese themselves
are divided over the issue of hostility and opposition to the Israeli
existence and or whether a truce with Israel should be considered or even
if relations with Israel should be established. Another problem issue is
centered around defining the type of relationship to be established
between the Lebanese state and the Islamic Arabs world. The Moslems of
Lebanon are pushing for substantial and unrestricted ties, which will
gradually lead to Lebanon being absorbed into a constitutionally
comprehensive single unified Arab entity. The Christians, however, are
cautious of committing to such a relationship, which goes beyond
establishing normal relations with other states on the basis of
sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as stated in the Arab league
accord.
Disagreement also exists over the issue of national defense from the point
of view of determining defense policies and deciding upon the fighting
doctrine of the army. Before deciding upon or determining the guidelines
of such an issue the matter of Lebanon's foreign relations must be settled
especially the relations with the neighborly regional powers. But it
appears that this matter is far from being settled in the near future at
least, especially in the shadow of the existing internal division, and
regional tensions and confrontation on Lebanese Territory.
3- One must recognize the connection or link between the internal
situation in Lebanon and the regional and international political
developments and the effects of this connection upon this internal
situation in terms of stability or fragility in relations to the balance
of power, or the effects of this link on either entrenching and expanding
the conflicts and disputes or promoting the search for constitutional
solutions formulas and structures. This connection (with the outside) of
today has been a common factor ever since the rule of prince Bashir 2, at
least.
This regional tension reflected upon the internal situation in Lebanon and
impacted negatively and, hence, all attempts at working out political and
constitutional solutions failed abysmally in Lebanon beginning with the
proposed constitutional document drafted in 1976 to the taif accord in
1989 including all the proposals and projects that promised solutions
between these two dates.
All these matters confirm to us that in order for any political regime to
succeed in Lebanon-whatever form it takes-two factors need to be available
or accessible. The first factor necessary is one of an internal nature
communities, one which is frank, direct, clear and free in an in an
atmosphere devoid of any pressure and intimidation and the second factor,
foreign, is conditional upon limiting the reflection of the effects of
foreign conflicts upon Lebanon and limiting foreign intervention and its
effects upon the balance of power domestically and in fact, prevent its
influence altogether upon the domestic situation if possible.
Federalism, as we have observed, can fulfil this task and can to a large
extent, contributes to solving the internal facet of strife and conflict
between the religious communities. Awaiting a satisfactory solution is the
external aspects i.e. the limiting or restricting of foreign intervention
in Lebanon's internal affairs. In this field of concern, the possibility
of isolating the external factor and eliminating its effect upon the
interior is far from achievable at this point of time especially in the
shadow of the current foreign political circumstances and the approaches
adopted by this foreign factor. The reason for the existence of this
influencing and interfering foreign factor is Lebanon's common borders
with Israel and Syria and their claims to ritual interest including
strategize and political extensions to their concerns in the Lebanese
interior, and the effective involvement of both these states in the
international political scene. Also another influencing reason is the
state of strife and conflict between the Lebanese religious communities,
which places at the forefront of importance in the relationship between
these communities the factor of military and political force. These
religious communities consider that their alliances with external forces
form the basis of very important element in determining the extent and
influence of this force (military and political), and its effectiveness.
This fact invites foreign interference and renders it vital to the
interest of the religious communities who readily this request this
intervention on their behalf in their internal conflicts.
For this reason the absolute necessity for a regional international
agreement arises. This will guarantee Lebanon's independence and
internationally recognized borders as well as its internal framework in
all its human elements through a Federal Regime. Lebanon must be allowed
to assume a permanent Internationally neutral role. This neutrality,
however, must be initially accepted internally.
Neutrality will effectually disengage Lebanon from the existing circle of
strategically influenced hostilities and conflicts in the Middle East.
This increases the hope of establishing a stable regime based upon a
stabilized balance of power and the basis of such a concept is dependent
upon the various factions accepting the fact they cannot or are incapable
of destabilizing and subverting such a regime, hence, they will be spared
the ramifications of the negative political impact upon any faction that
may consider moving in this direction.
It is true that neutrality will not eliminate the spirit of disagreement
and conflict present between the Lebanese factions, however it will reduce
the visible effects of this predicament to a minimum and such disputes
will be restricted to the political and the ideological level within the
bounds of the media. This will allow for an extended and lengthy cessation
to the successive rounds of violence dogging Lebanon.
An internationally neutral Lebanon does not necessarily mean that the
Lebanese religious communities have to abandon their basis conviction and
beliefs, and their political ideologies. In fact neutrality is only
intended to compel communities into forsaking any intentions they have of
imposing their convictions and beliefs upon the other, and to render them
incapable of carrying out such intentions.
So, the federal regime and neutrality are two convergent faces and in
union provide the formula and the solution to the Lebanese problem. But,
the appropriate internal as well as external circumstances are essential
for the success of any formula. A federal regime reduces friction between
the religious communities at the constitutional level will, however,
remain without the required and desired results unless it is accompanied
by measures to prevent these frictions on the ground in real life
situation. These preventative measures have an internal psychological
facet represented by the need for all the factions to be convinced that in
the event of violent confrontation they will not be able to gain any
advantage politically or otherwise, if indeed they attempt to take
advantage of a negative situation. The same psychological implications are
mirrored upon the external front where foreign forces or elements refrain
from promoting internal conflict, i.e. cease investing their resources for
the purpose of instigating and maintaining internal divisions that only
serve their purposes, and to stop utilizing these resources for increasing
the capabilities of the internal factions and giving them false hopes
which only encourages them to depart from the balance existing between
them.
Finally, such a document requires a careful and concentrated examination.
An objective approach is compulsory not a subjective one based upon past
judgements and mythical ideological attitudes. Antoine Najem sums up the
feeling of those who promote this document in his statement: " we are
federalists because we believe in freedom with all its ramifications and
significance.
Because we support a system which identifies with the truest form of
democracy and its features and demands development and growth, equality,
justice, co-existence in a pluralist and diverse society. Only because we
value humanity."
