|
The pattern
of the Lebanese society as visualized by Bashir Gemayel is
characterized by two basic features: the first is static, and shows us
how Bashir imagined Lebanese society in a simplistic and realistic
manner at the same time. The second is dynamic, and describes the
means whereby reactions and frictions occur among the members of that
society and its various sections. This simplistic picture of a complex
reality may help us to understand political, economic, moral and
sociological matters occurring after we have pinpointed their place
and their role within a more general framework. What is important in
the whole question is not the truth in the divergence or convergence
of reactions among the members of one same Lebanese family, but rather
the search for effective means of monitoring these reactions at close
range, and steering them towards the right path.
In the
following lines, we shall try to describe, in detail, the picture
visualized by Bashir Gemayel of a model society, bearing in mind that
he had formed this conception gradually, during his long march at the
head of the Resistance.
THE LEBANESE SOCIETY
In an
interview with a daily newspaper “Al-Qabas” in 1980, Bashir said:
“The
sociological reality of the Lebanese consists of communities and
sects. Historians and sociologists have irrefutably established the
fact that every group and sect clings to its distinctive features.
There is nothing wrong with that, nor should this, in principle,
preclude peaceful co-existence or constitute a contradiction.”
This first
part of the interview establishes, in an irrefutable manner, three
basic realities in the conception of a Lebanese social structure. The
first of these is that Lebanese society, as a whole, is an established
fact in itself, since both Muslims and Christians have expressed their
intention clearly to go on living side-by-side in Lebanon. But for
this desire not to be a mere pious wish or a commercial transaction
that would be rather short-lived, so that this desire should stem from
an inner conviction, Bashir stressed that this desire should not
obviate the existence of two truly diverse communities: the Christians
and the Muslims. More important yet, we should not be afraid to admit
that each of these two great communities has its own distinctive
features and specific characteristics, and each of them seeks to
preserve them and safeguard them. ???At
this stage, it remains to be seen how we can reconcile these two
factors: the desire on the part of both to co-exist in peace, and
their atavistic attachment to their peculiar traits and specificity's.
The Christian
Community: Definition and Role.
After having
proclaimed these three realities which are incontrovertible Bashir
proceeded to define his concept of the Christian community in Lebanon
and its role. He was the most qualified person to do this, since he
had been entrusted, ever since the beginning of the war years, with
the faith of these Christians and had lead them along the path of
survival through all their tribulations. Was he not himself a scion of
one of the most noble Christian Maronite families in Lebanon, one who
had always played a leading role in the construction of the Lebanese
State? One who had, by its deeds and attitudes, pulled the nation out
of many a predicament?
It should be
mentioned here that this momentous initiative on the part of Bashir
was not dictated by any considerations of narrow fanaticism, but
transcended these to a broader scope of nationalist preoccupations. He
was careful, however, to reserve a pioneering role for the Christian
community in Lebanon, in view of the fact that it was the only one
that had retained its full rights and enjoyed an independent status in
the midst of fanatical and fundamentalist Arab regimes surrounding it.
In many, not to say most, Arab countries of the area, Islam has been
incorporated in the Constitution as the “Religion of the state”, and
all the non-Muslim minorities are finding it increasingly hard to live
there, let alone exercise their religious freedom…
 When
the war broke out, Bashir fully realized the grave perils to which the
Christian community was exposed. It was quite natural therefor to give
priority to this problem, and Bashir’s main concern was to organize
the effective defense of that community. He declared: “ Our people in
this part of the world are threatened by several perils. I am not
speaking from a sectarian standpoint; this is our true situation. Ever
since the bloody ordeals of April 13, 1975, the Christians realize
that their fate hangs in the balance, and their existence is dangling
on a slender thread. If, therefor, we do not determine our own way of
life, if we are not vigilant and prepared for any contingency, the
slightest whiff will snuff out our candle and blow us out of
existence… That is why we have to be on our guard constantly, our life
must be a permanent mobilization, an unceasing vigil, a perpetual
preoccupation for survival…We have to preserve our dignity and walk
tall, or not walk at all ?!
? ?
“ This????????? vigilance and state of preparedness, this constant
defense of the Christian community does not constitute an issue in
itself, if we do not know what is to be our role as Christians in this
part of the world, and why we are unable to play this role anywhere
but in Lebanon only …To provide the answers to these questions, the
ancient history of the Christians in the Orient was present in
Bashir’s memory. And from this retrospective, it was clear that the
Christians would never agree to be uprooted from this area, as many
people believed they would be, and worked towards such a result…
Bashir said: “ It is a fact that the Christian people of Lebanon are
aware of their ancient history and distinctive culture, as well as
their considerable contribution to civilization. Their long-standing
heritage and noble values, bequeathed to them by one of the oldest
civilizations of history, make them cling to their land and reject any
notion of leaving Lebanon… or the Orient. They have therefor dug their
feet in, to defend their soil, their culture and their values… they
refuse to be uprooted, to emigrate, or to be displaced…
“Internal
migration is a unique feature of Lebanon, as migrants usually leave
their country completely…”
This
insistence, on the part of the Christians, to remain where they are
does not imply a decision to isolate themselves from their environment
or to form separate Christian “ghettos” as some malicious tongues have
described the situation… For they realize that they cannot thrive
unless they play a constructive role with the other communities; this
does not mean that one party should dominate the other in any field,
as in the case in many other countries where the Christians are left
with an insignificant role, or treated as “second-class citizens” as
the Jews were, in Nazi Germany of the third Reich. They are even
denied their basic rights under any constitution, and the Universal
Charter on Human Rights is openly flouted by the despotic rulers of
countries where they live as minorities … Bashir touches on this
issue: “ After forty years experience in this part of the world, we
have become fully aware of our interests, and we were determined to do
all that we can to safeguard these interests and promote them in the
service of our communities. As a society, we are determined to go on
living in this part of the world as free individuals. Our society is
an open and responsible one, having its own distinctive personality.
Let us therefor exercise one of the most sacred of human rights: that
of self-defense…”. On another occasion, he said: “ With all due
respect to the people concerned, we refuse to be put on a par with the
Copts of Egypt, or the Christians of certain Arab countries… Of
course, they eat, drink, sleep and breathe like any other human being
or animal, living a normal life in all respects except… that their
civil and religious rights are curtailed, and they are allowed no role
in the society of the countries where they live. No sir, we refuse to
live like zombies!”…
For all these
reasons, Bashir wanted Lebanon to be a genuine homeland to the
Christians, and not simply a “national home” for persecuted
minorities, or a refuge for displaced persons”…
He wanted the
Christians communities to preserve all their peculiar characteristics,
and to be safe from unwarranted aggression, from whatsoever quarter it
may come. He wanted to safeguard their security against any hostile
action, aiming at their liquidation as a minority living in the midst
of a Muslim majority. And in this context, he set up a strong homeland
in which the Christians could live in freedom and security. “ Our
Christian society wishes to live on this land of Lebanon in freedom
and peace”, he said: “We are not asking for a “national home” for the
Christians, but for a homeland in which we can live free and safe,
without being exposed to a new genocide. Insofar as we are concerned,
we cannot endure another genocide…. This is all that we want…”. What
remains to be known in this context is the limit drawn up by Bashir
for the Christian community’s dealings and interactions with the
Muslim community. But let us leave this point for the moment, as it
will be dealt with in the fourth part of our study concerning the
dynamics of the contacts undertaken between the two communities.
The Muslim
Community: Definition and Roles.
Although the
fundamental concern of Bashir Gemayel was for the community to which
he belonged, he did not neglect the second reality staring him in the
face: the existence of the Muslim community. And considering that any
action at the national level undertaken would not be complete without
an extensive knowledge of all its aspects, Bashir desired a broader
acquaintance with the factual realities of that same Muslim community
that was sharing the same life with him. He also wished to see that
community plays a positive role, in which it would participate,
alongside the Christians, in the construction of sound a strong
element of a Lebanese society as a whole.
He said: “
The Muslim side is anxious to revert to its original Lebanese roots,
because the Muslims of Lebanon have tried both experiments, and have
seen where this has led them…”.
“The Lebanese
Muslim today is aware of the fact that his situation differs vastly
from that of
Muslims in any other country… Even his personality is different from
that of any other Arab Muslim. Today, he has realized this fact…”. In
this case, it is not so important for the Lebanese Muslim to realize
the truth of his identity as a Lebanese citizen: what is important, is
that he should realize that his Lebanese identity does not strip him
of his peculiar features, of the characteristics which distinguish him
as a member of his community – which equally enjoys the right of total
religious freedom in the exercise of the Muslim faith-. On the
strength of these principles, Bashir called upon the Muslim community
to play its role full in the reconstruction of the country, stressing
the necessity for the operation to be shared equally between the two
communities. Bashir’s intentions called for equal sharing of all
responsibilities by Muslim and Christians alike, after each of the two
had discovered his true identity and recognized himself as a Lebanese
citizen first and foremost. He said: “ I, and my Muslim partner, are
in this boat together, and once more we have recovered our full
sovereignty and complete independence, we will lose no time in
agreeing on all other matters. We shall then agree on sharing the
carious duties and responsibilities, not the spoils… We want to return
this feudal estate into a respectable and respected nation…I would
like to know the extent of my responsibilities as a Christian, and the
Muslim should also know his responsibilities too. Thus only, can we
meet halfway…”. This meeting of Lebanese Muslims and Christians
halfway requires Muslim to realize his attitude towards the Christian
community and to define it frankly. It constitutes an open invitation
for Muslims and Christians to be equal partners in their
responsibilities at the same level. And it should not be a source of
astonishment that Bashir addressed the Muslim community by putting
questions to it. Notwithstanding his adequate knowledge of the deep
historical roots that tie both Lebanese communities to their land,
this was necessary.
Because
Bashir could not take the place of the Muslims, look into their
consciences, and answer the questions for them. Therefore, just as the
Christian community had done, in full awareness of its roots, its
historical heritage, and its unquestionable Lebanese identity, so
should the Muslims do also, conducting their own research and
including it with a kind of “ Referendum” to determine, once and for
all, their national identity.
Inter-Lebanese
Communication: Means and Interaction.
Although the
picture painted by Sheikh Bashir of Lebanese society is both
spontaneous and simplistic, and although this society, as it is
described in the preceding chapters, is purely Lebanese in identity,
in fact, constitutes the unique distinctive feature of this nation in
the East, yet the real issue remains the manner of dealing that
governs – or should govern - the relations between the various
sections of that society. Bashir realized that the matter was not as
simple as some people thought. In fact, he was convinced that
Lebanon’s failure to safeguard its status stemmed from its incapacity
to find a practical and realistic means of inter-Lebanese
communications. But what should we then say of the famous “Formula of
43”, whereby the Lebanese had decided to live together in peace and
harmony?
In this
context, Bashir had a clear outlook, which does not contradict the
spirit of ’43… But he boldly denounced the matter in which this
formula was applied since 1943. He declared: “ The war has shaken our
faith in the basic foundations of our society since 1943 till this day
and we have sadly discovered that the whole thing was a cynical farce
and a sinister joke…”
It is
noteworthy that Bashir had a clear-cut attitude with relation to the
preliminary basic constituents of the “formula”, which were elaborated
on certain principles that were sentimental, to say the least, and
that could not have withstood a crisis. On the other hand, Bashir put
forward new proposals for a formula resting on scientific grounds, and
studied thoroughly.
This new
formula was inspired by the factual realities of the Lebanese
situation, and Bashir therefor convened the specialists and gave them
the green light to go ahead and draw up projects in the various
fields. He said: “ The Lebanese Forces have been deeply engaged, for
some time in studying practical means for the development of regions
of stead-fastness and stability in all fields throughout Lebanon. This
would be done on a modern basis, in harmony with the requirements of
progress and reconstruction, in a new perspective of the Lebanese
society after the experience of the war. The Lebanese will discover
the joys of living once more in this triangle of stability, after
their ordeals are over. In this connection, we ask all those who have
skills and the necessary qualifications in their fields of
construction, engineering and economics, to come forward and offer
their ideas and projects to the competent bodies in the Lebanese
Forces…”
To clarify
the outline of these interactions which would serve as a basis for the
new Lebanese society, we shall strive, in the following lines to
analyze their nature in the various field: -
Firstly:
Interaction within one same community.
It is obvious
that Bashir should choose the Christian community as a point of
departure in his definition of this interaction. He thought it wiser
to “ put one’s own house in order”, before starting to tackle the
wider fields at the national level. And he wished to see this
Christian community serve as a model, a showpiece for all other
communities to emulate. This is the reason why he had devoted all his
attention and his efforts to the betterment of his own community, and
sought, at all times, to achieve cohesion within the Christian groups.
Time and again, Bashir urged the Christian community to be vigilant
and to overcome the perils that threatened their existence, and are
enduring trifling incidents without any justification. On the occasion
of this gathering, I would like to stress the fact that what is needed
today, more than ever, is a sound mind in a sound body…”.
 “Mens
Sana in corpore sano, as the ancient sages advocated. Today, we are
badly in need of returning to the right path; those, among us who
suffer of various complexes, must overcome these; all of us should
realize the great sacrifices that we have offered for the Cause in the
course of the past five years, and we should not allow those diseased
minds in our ranks to throw those sacrifices to the winds, and to
destroy the achievements of the Lebanese Resistance, or put them in
jeopardy…” It should be noted here that Sheikh Bashir merely “invited”
his followers to close their ranks and restore cohesion in their
community, rather than command them to do so… they were not accustomed
to such mild talk on the part of their leader. Bashir was aware of
this, in his versatile character of a chief who commands respect and
obedience, assuming the authoritarian tone of command when necessary,
and lenifying words of paternalism on other occasions. Thus, he placed
the requisites of cohesion and solidarity in a practical crucible,
which was designed not only for the use of the Christian community,
but also for the Muslim society as well. For he intended both to delve
into this melting-pot and make use of all the positive elements
available in a joint effort for the resurgence of the new Lebanon.
This melting-pot should contain elements of all the representative
ethnical and sectarian components of the Lebanese people, organized
into distinct parties enabling them to express their views on various
matters, and their aspirations for the country they desired to serve.
Bashir acknowledged the fact that these disparate groupings, organized
along party lines, would, in their majority, reflect the intricate
pattern of Lebanese society, viz The demographic composition in its
social, political and religious aspects. In this regard, he stated:
“ On this
basis, we consider that the Druzes and Muslims in Lebanon should
organize themselves into political parties and institutions which
would express their identity, their personality and their
inspirations. Only then can they meet with their Christian
fellow-citizens, also through parties and institutions that express
their personality, their hopes and ambitions…”
And finally ,
Sheikh Bashir stressed the moral aspects of the Christian society,
because a sound moral code of ethics is the only thing that can ensure
the information of a good citizen who values his role in society , and
attaches a noble and responsible meaning to his citizenship . Bashir
was not content to proclaim this in his speeches: he intended to see
to it that a sound moral code of conduct was put into daily practice
and he started inculcating these principles and ethics into the
fighting forces. In an address to the Reservists, he said: “ You
should train yourselves from now on to adopt a high code of morals, to
be serious in your work, and to behave responsibly in your daily life.
These qualities can only be acquired by practice and hard work…”. In
keeping with these lofty principles and noble virtues stemming from a
true Christian Faith, he reiterated the necessity for the young
fighters to shun hatred, and to bear in wind at all times the fact
that human values lie in a man’s capacity to forgive and forget, and
to befriend our foe. Similarly, these same values call for an ability
to preserve these virtues and to defend them, because they stem from a
man’s own personality. He added: “ If we wish to circumvent the
Lebanese crisis, we must first of all rid ourselves of all feelings of
hatred and vindictive bitterness with which some of us are imbued. We
must cast aside all impediments which conceal from our view the basic
essentials without which we cannot live, and without which we cannot
rebuild a sound nation in whose heritage and civilization we all
firmly believe.”… He added frankly: “ We must let bygones be bygones,
and rise above the antiquated tribal mentality and feudal customs with
all the social decay that they engendered… But if, at the worst, we
reach a point where it becomes apparent that our Lebanese entity, and
our very existence are threatened by those ignorant tribal hoards
reminiscent of the Dark Ages, then we shall be forced to defend
ourselves and to fight…”
We have
previously explained that this was Sheikh Bashir’s method of dealing
with his fellow-citizens in the Christian community, for this was the
environment in which he was brought up and in which he lived. It does
not mean, however, that he did not harbor an ardent desire to apply
these same methods to other communities, so that they could encompass
the whole of Lebanon’s society.
Secondly:
Revising the relations between the Christian and Muslim communities.
In the first
part of this section, we analyzed the nature of interaction between
the Christian and Muslim communities in its vertical aspects. Now,
what remains to be studied is the method of establishing dealings
between the two communities, and this will give us an insight into the
horizontal aspects of this interaction. This is a very sensitive area
of the problem, as it introduces forthwith two basic postulations: The
first involves an inventory of the potential fields and positive
aspects that are likely to attract the two communities towards each
other. (Viz Their common language, culture, traditions, history,
interests an identity…)
The second
implies a frank and in-depth analysis of the factors that separate the
two groups, and the fields, which incite dissension and strife between
them, drawing them far apart.
All these
factors of harmony and points of dissension seem to be normal features
in a society so complex in its plurality and in its ethnical and
sectarian composition. However, this being the case, we, as Lebanese,
are entitled to ask this question; Is the long crisis, that we are
still enduring, a product of theses differences? And if so, what could
we have done, in order to avoid reaching the point of armed conflict,
and to solve these contradictions in our Lebanese society? Bashir had
realized the crucial importance of this situation, and had constantly
tried to clarify his own concept of the strife. He argued that, in
spite of the fact that the inter-communal conflict was very real, it
should not be allowed to threaten the Lebanese entity with eradication
as it was on the verge of doing.
Said Bashir:
“ Plurality in Lebanon is a factual reality which has asserted itself
on all occasions. It’s just up to us to recognize that plurality along
lines of harmonious co-existence, instead of lines of hostile
confrontation…” And in order to make this reorganization realistic,
effective, and capable of withstanding the various convulsions of an
eventual crisis, Bashir proceeded to diagnose the delicate fabric of
Lebanese society by a painstaking and precise analysis of its positive
and negative factors: what were the poles of attraction? Which factors
were those most likely to unite the communities? And on the other
hand, where were the ferments of strives and discord? What factors
were divisive ones? What were the reasons that pitted one category of
Lebanese citizen against the other?
Once these
were identified, his plan was to reinforce the former, and to
circumscribe the latter, reducing the ominous gap to the strictest
minimum… and thereby preserving Lebanon’s entity and restoring its
stability and internal cohesion through a judicious shuffling of the
political and social cards. Bashir had the necessary qualities to
carry this Herculean task through to the end: he was a realist and a
pragmatist, and his ardent love for his country fired him with
incentive and filled him with energy. His diagnosis proceeded along
the following methodical pattern:
a) Security
and Freedom: Those who
have followed Bashir Gemayel’s statements from 1975 to 1982 will have
noted his scrupulous concern for the security and freedom of all the
communities living on Lebanon’s soil. And in order to ensure this, he
clearly defined his concept of these two indispensable elements,
saying: “ We understand security as something that safeguards
individual liberties and Man’s freedom in the exercise of his values,
rights, qualities, and distinctive traits; we understand freedom as a
safeguard of the community’s security in its Constitutional aspects of
the Law and Order. And just as authority should not be abused to
constitute tyranny against the citizen, neither should freedom be
constructed as license and misused to develop into rebellion against
Law and Order…” One can observe here, in Bashir’s reasoning, that
freedom should not be placed above the higher interest of the Nation,
and that this is necessarily
linked with security, which guarantees the continuous exercise of this
freedom and its evolution. It is also evident that the points of
concordance between the communities are clear in Bashir’s view, and
that he does not emphasize them only for the benefit of the Christian
community, but also for the Muslim groups, which he considers at the
bottom of his heart as indissociable from the former, and both forming
the nucleus of Lebanon’s pluralistic society. This particular point of
convergence was absent so far in most people’s minds, but Bashir was
firmly convinced of its existence and the possibility of bringing it
to the surface. The negation of this point was a direct consequence of
the mistrust that had grown between the two communities over the
years; on one hand, the Christians were living in constant fear of the
Druze and Muslim communities, and these qualms were supported by
historical facts; on the other hand, the Muslims were lending
attentive ears to maliciously motivated promises of protection from
across the borders, and the tendentious lures of Pan-Arabism, coupled
with appeals to their religious feelings… Sheikh Bashir had rejected
both these attitudes on many occasions. He firmly believed that
confidence could be restored between the various communities, and
consequently, security and freedom. During the long last years of his
struggle- sometimes with brutal frankness- he tried to rekindle that
confidence so necessary to co-existence. He was bent on seeing the
foreigners leave Lebanon, because he was well aware of their
subversive intentions and the insidious game they were playing in
widening the ago between the two communities, for it clearly served
their dark interests to drive a wedge between Christians and Muslims.
Their leitmotiv was to instill constant fear in the hearts of the
Muslims of the Christian domination over them, and pose as their
protectors.
Bashir was
very blunt on this point, and spoke out vehemently against those two
“fished in troubled waters”, saying: “ Baseless fear have been
instilled in the Lebanese Muslims by the Syrians and the Palestinians,
to the effort that they would be slaughtered by the Kataeb, the
Lebanese Forces, and by me, Bashir Gemayel, if they ever ventured into
our districts…! This is a classical ploy, aiming at perpetuating the
Syrian and the Palestinian presence in Lebanon “ad infinitum”… Here
and now, I ask my Muslim brethren not to allow such absurd rubbish:
And I underline this request in red ink. I can assure them that during
the past 43 years of co-existence, no such incident has ever been
recorded in our areas, before the Syrian and Palestinian intruders
came into this country. This is mere malicious propaganda, and I beg
our Muslim Lebanese brethren not to believe a word of it. For the past
five years, the alien intruders have been repeating these “cliches” in
order to influence events in taking a turn favorable to their
policies… I tell you: Bashir Gemayel is a sword in your hands, and not
a weapon pointed at your chest. !”. But at that stage, the endeavors
of Bashir fell flat, and his call to the Muslims did not succeed in
restoring the desired confidence within the framework of security and
liberty between the two communities. Bashir therefor pinned his hopes
on the future. And effectively, after some had passed, the Lebanese on
the whole had gained in experience and maturity, and the Muslim
community began to realize the danger of the inhibitions and the
fallacious nature of the “ brainwashing” to which they had been
subjected. They also began to fight for their freedom and their
security. Bashir declared: “ For the first time, we now see that the
Lebanese Sunnite Muslims of Beirut have started to pay the bill for
their existence and their freedom, just as their Christian
counterparts have done years ago. Similarly, the Lebanese Shi’ite
Muslims in the South have risen from their lethargy. Now is the time
for all of us in Lebanon, after we have paid our bills, to join hands,
and not to reply on superiors initiatives from one quarter of another.
We should face realities, and meet as one people to get rid of
occupation…” Here, Bashir Gemayel adamantly rejects dependence of any
kind. Rather, he proposes that all parties should live in security and
freedom, and this is a dream that could be turned into reality, if the
Lebanese Muslim joins forces with his Christian fellow-citizens to
chase the aliens out of the country. In fact, the unity of the nation
begins with the unity of the resistance against occupations; there
lies the way to freedom. Security is the right of every individual and
community, and so is freedom… By this, what is meant is responsible
freedom, without demagogy; freedom that is protected by a strong
state, with the participation of all responsible individuals, parties
bodies and communities, to help attain that objectives. The foreign
intruders may have exploited demagogy in their time, and abused
freedom, with the aim of creating fields of confrontation and areas of
friction. But this will not be allowed to happen in Lebanon, because
this freedom would be guaranteed by a strong State exercising
flexibility in safeguarding the rights of all communities in Lebanon
and their plurality. In this context, Bashir said:” We are the ones
who wish for true unity of the nation, but we want this unity to be
enjoyed by a free, sovereign, strong and independent Lebanon, and by
all its sons, every inch of its territory. We want to see everybody in
this land enjoy freedom and all their human rights, without suffering
from complexes…”
b)Education:
Bashir dealt at length
on the subject of education. He first considered common points that
were likely to draw each of the two large communities towards the
other, and then, those elements that divided these two communities
towards and put them at odds with each other. Bashir did not suffer
from the ‘Ostrich Complex’, which would have led him to ignore these
differences, because insofar as he was concerned, they did not present
a danger for the Lebanese communities as a whole if the situation were
to be corrected… the two communities could be recognized, and linked
together by what they had in common, and then these differences would
disappear with time and patient efforts. Bashir had no objection to
let community retain its own heritage, customs and civilization,
because this is a fact and a reality, He further admits, with bold
pragmatism, that each community is entitled to proclaim its pride in
its own heritage and civilization publicly, and to include these in
its educational curricula. He states:” the nation’s leaders and
officials should understand that two civilizations exist alongside one
another in this country, and that people are living in a pluralistic
civilization. The Lebanese University has between created to remain
and develop further; we do not want to have our children resume their
education in the kind of climate that prevailed at the former
university, which taught the student everything except the most
important subjects: Lebanon’s culture, heritage and civilization…”.
Bashir
stressed these facts, especially when the new branches of the Lebanese
University started to operate and to develop, and he was one of its
most enthusiastic advocates. On the other hand, Bashir realized that
this plurality had limits in the field of education.
He knew that
a pluralistic education in Lebanon inevitably had its roots in history
and in a realistic perspective of Lebanese presence in “toto”… And the
type of history taught in certain specific schools was, for reasons
that are obvious, devoid of all facts relating to pure Lebanese
history, such as was contained in the official school curricula, with
the result that whole generations of Lebanese children would grow up
in complete ignorance of their country’s history and civilization, and
of its identity.
It is not
surprising therefor, that the past few years have revealed
indifference and irresponsibility on the part of those in the seats of
power for the nation’s problems. With regard to the training of
students, Bashir said: “ In the framework of the policies which are
being planned for the Lebanon of tomorrow, we have started to train
the students. Through this training, we are seeking to change the old
mentality with which the State dealt with education in particular, and
with the formation of our future generations in general. Thus, the
decayed and corrupt curricula imposed on the students, as well as the
alien programs and textbooks imposed on the teachers, not to mention
other textbooks completely devoid of content, were all conspicuous for
one common fact: Lebanon’s history, culture, literature and
civilization were totally absent… And this is something that we shall
not tolerate henceforth. We have had enough of the obscurantism at
government level; down with the Philistines in our educational system:
They are the evils that have led to this war and to the destruction of
our nation, to the disintegration of our Institutions, and to the
bankruptcy of our Treasury…”. The danger that threatens Lebanon
therefor does not stem from plurality in education, as much as it
stems from the crass ignorance of its educators and their sinister
efforts to propagate this ignorance among the rising generations: “
Obscurum per obscuris…” Another underlying trend, of a more serious
nature, is the intention of our Philistines in high places to smother
the truth and camouflage those aspects of Lebanon’s history that they
are bent on eradication completely. The role of a future strong State
should be to ensure the perennity of our education and its protection,
nay, its support and financial banking, to promote its advancement and
enable it to flourish within purely Lebanese Institutions.
c) The
Economic and Social Field.
Unlike the
preceding points, the economic and social sectors, according to Bashir
Gemayel, provide more common poles of attraction between the two major
communities, and a vide scope for inter-communal harmony and
cooperation.
Both sides
undoubtedly advocate the maintenance of a liberal economic system,
which has been the key to Lebanon’s prosperity in the past, and the
benefits of which have been enjoyed by all sections of the Lebanese
population without exception. As we have explained before, Sheikh
Bashir wished to consolidate this sector and to recognize it on a firm
and sound basis. Therefor, no differences of opinion existed as to
this general principle. However, Bashir warned against the possibility
of an abusive exercise of this principle, which could lead to
disparities and imbalance in actual practice. For these liberal
principles had also stumbled into the pitfalls of superiors freedom
and demagogy, characterizing some sections of Lebanese society. This
act had often given rise to widespread cases of unruly exploitation
and to the domination by certain classes over others, even of cases of
flagrant corruption, all of which was an undesirable situation. It
also provided a scope to certain leftist circles – through wanton
destruction rather than projects of reforms- to divert the situation
to their own advantage. When Bashir took over the reins of initiative,
he adopted some corrective measures to put a stop to all forms of
abuse and exploitation of these liberties. He proposed, at the level
of the nation as a whole, a scientific outlook for the Lebanese social
and economic infrastructure. This tended to make of each Lebanese
citizen a responsible element of this infrastructure. Bashir called
upon all the Lebanese to participate in the program with loyalty and
sincerity.
 In this
manner, Bashir Gemayel had created a solid link between the economic
and the social sectors. The Lebanese citizen would carry on his work
and his enterprises as usual, and the new strong State would ensure
his security… and all this would be supervised at close range.
Planning was to be carried out in all fields, and everything would be
done to foster the nation’s development and prosperity for the common
welfare of all its citizens. Said Bashir: “ This new social charter is
based on five principles: Freedom, in our view, should not reach the
extent of license and disorder; liberty should not be synonymous with
anarchy; because anarchy is the enemy of freedom. Neither do we want
planning to become a form of compulsory orientation; this would savor
of autocracy, and autocracy
is the enemy of production. Likewise, unbridled production is not
desirable; it often leads to the exploitation of Man by Man; and
favors the law of the jungle… What id needed is a moderate rate of
production, in which the Lebanese individual works along-sides his
fellow-citizens on a basis of equality, social justice, and
job-opportunities. And just as we would like to have orderly freedom
in the field of planning, so should planning consolidate freedom. We
do not want production for the sake of production, but mainly to
provide job-opportunities. And freedom, planning, production and equal
opportunities cannot thrive without participation as a means, and
organization, and sound management to back them. Thus, the social
charter can be achieved through a trilateral hierarchy; the power, the
employer, and the worker. This means participation, and it is the
optimal method of creating a modern society…’
This outlook
imposes upon us a simple reality; it shows us how intent was Sheikh
Bashir on establishing sound foundations for the country’s economy
which emanates from the society, and model criteria for the society
which only exists and flourishes by dint of its economic system.
Sheikh Bashir
had stated these five major principles in an intelligent coherent
manner, blending them together in one single homogeneous body, each
being organically dependent upon the other. And he contrived to make
every citizen, regardless of his religious affiliation, fulfil a
specific role in the plan. In this manner, Bashir found a new scope
for the interaction of the Lebanese citizens, as it involved their
daily life problems and everyday preoccupations. There is no necessity
to proceed with a detailed analysis here of the five basic principles
that Sheikh Bashir outlined further back, giving each of them a
distinct meaning and stipulating the conditions for their successful
application. It is enough to summarize what Bashir wished to clarify
in every case. Thus, in Bashir’s view, a liberal economy in a free
society and freedom is indivisible-is based on the principles of
individual initiative, of private ownership, and of planning. And
these principles are valid for all parts of the nation; they aim at
the reconstruction and development of the country with the full
participation of all its inhabitants. -Production is something that
emanates from Lebanon’s human resources, and from the Lebanese
individual’s extraordinary capacity for innovation, in view of the
fact that Lebanon’s natural resources are very scarce. -Job
opportunities for all; this is what takes into consideration the
productive capacity of each individual; a cumulative proportion of the
GNP is earmarked to raise the standards of living of Lebanese society.
-Participation is what achieves equality among the citizens, in their
responsibilities and obligations, and in the management of this new
charter.
d) In the
Field of Information:
In this
matter, Bashir Gemayel had two resolute opinions: the first was an
absolute rejection-even a virulent opposition-of the official
information media, his main grievance being that it was a stipendiary
of certain foreign circles hostile to Lebanon, and that moreover, it
had, during the war, added fuel to the flames by propagating
fallacious news items with a view to demoralize the Lebanese, and to
widen the gap further between the various communities.
In fact, the
official information contributed greatly to spread dissension and
strife among the Lebanese communities, the inevitable result of which
was to be the annihilation of Lebanon’s political entity, and
dissolution of its national identity. The second of these attitudes,
was Bashir’s constant concern for the truth. In this case, the citizen
asked: “ what truth is Sheikh Bashir speaking about?”… In the final
analysis, is truth not relative? And it is not absolute, by any means,
Bashir had no desire to expound on the philosophy truth: all that he
wanted from the media was a clear, courageous reporting of matters as
they stood. It should not create ambiguity and anxiety in the minds of
the public, by reporting that we were speaking of one thing, whereas
the fact was that we were discussing a totally different subject….
Every slight event was distorted, twisted to serve certain interests,
and printed in utter disregard of the truth. Bashir expected the State
information to report matters in their right context, and to use terms
in their correct meaning, rather than bemuse the public and develop
various complexes in their minds… In his opinion, a friend was one who
respected the Lebanese features and identity, and the foe was one who
sought to do away with these characteristics. In Bashir’s view, this
was the only manner in which Lebanese society could be given the
necessary power to impose respect on others, if these believed that
they could impose their domination on Lebanon. In this respect, Bashir
said: “ Our area… our civilization, our true democratic society cannot
possibly emerge from all these trials and ordeals unscathed, unless
they first acquire lucid awareness, a clear perspective of the
situation, and the faculty to tell the truth and call things by their
names. In this manner at least, they shall know how to deal with us,
and we shall know how we should deal with them.
However, in
many cases, telling the truth was an impossible task, especially when
one considers that numerous organs of information had sprung up in
Lebanon, all belonging to nearby countries in the region, or financed
by them. The main objective of these heteroclitic agencies was to
propagate subversive ideologies of a specific nature, far removed from
the national interest, and detrimental to it in most cases. For this
reason, Bashir Gemayel, in a TV appearance during the summer of ’82,
invited these alien organs to clear out of the country, before ‘they
got kicked out by the Lebanese people’. He also invited Lebanese
journalists and information agencies that were abroad to return to
Lebanon in order to serve their country and participate in the
development of that sector, improving it within the democratic
framework of a free, responsible press, which would become the vital
artery of Lebanon.
e) Facing
Everyday Problems:
Besides his
deep concern for the basis constituents of Lebanese society, Bashir
was aware of the fact that the only way to succeed in his plans was to
devote constant attention to the people’s daily problems, and to find
effective means of solving them. For numerous contingencies cropped up
from time to time, all of which were directly engendered by the war
that was afflicting the Lebanese people for the past years. He thought
that it was all very well for a leader to launch attractive theories
and hypothetical cures for the nation’s ills and then be powerless to
face a serious emergency… But Bashir was not made of that clay: he
fully realized that the however grandiose the future projects of
development and the social charters might appear on paper, they would
run into complications of implementation, if the daily nagging
problems generated by time were allowed to accumulate. In fact, they
could even jeopardize these future plans. This incited Bashir to
tackle these problems personally, and in a swift, practical manner.
There were urgent labor and economic problems to be solved, and means
had to be devised to prevent their recurrence.
There are
numerous examples of Bashir’s personal intervention in such instances.
Among these, his efficient handling of the Hotel-Dieu case; the sit-in
protest of the Asfurieh Mental Home staff; strikes and protest
stoppages in the textile industry, relating to a dispute over the
payment of the thirteenth month (a month’s yearly bonus usually
granted at Christmas), the taxi-drivers’ strike, and many other social
difficulties which he solved successfully. In the field of materiel
burdens piling up on the poorer classes as a result of the war, he
held lengthy meetings to evolve ways and means of alleviating these
burdens, and relieving those people of their major difficulties, so
that he could clear the path for his plans of reconstruction and
development. It should be mentioned that Bashir did not restrict his
activities to the solution of problems of a specific category of the
people, but he realized that these daily difficulties, in a strange
paradoxical way, were a common denominator that drew the Lebanese
closer to each other, irrespective of their class or category, and
notwithstanding, their harsh or tragic aspects…
f) Caring for the Rising Generations:
Bashir did
not forget that, whatever success Lebanon may have may have achieved
in the present age, this success would be incomplete, unless new
generations were prepared to carry on the good work, and take over
from their elders. In his concern over this fact, Bashir did not
restrict his advice to one category of society, but addressed his
appeal to every body. Furthermore, he proved that his care for the
younger citizens was not just talk, but was translated into action. As
was his custom, he started with the Christian community, gathering
children in summer holiday camps and collective orientation centers.
These activities were mainly conducted by the “Help Lebanon”
Association, and the young inmates of these camps always greeted
Bashir with enthusiasms and warm signs of affection. They listened to
him eagerly when he spoke about Lebanon, who to explore it, how to
discover its hidden wonders… Bashir, how ever, did not wish to be the
sole promoter of such activities which were of a delicate nature.
He realized
that the starting-point was the home, under the wise guidance of the
mother, and in the affective environment of the family. He therefor
missed no opportunity to address the Lebanese woman, who was the
foundation of all society. He told them: “ You, Ladies, have an
important and essential role to play in the formation of Lebanese
society. For every community that loses its humanitarian values is
doomed to disintegration and extinction, and to kind of treatment can
save it from that fate. The future of Lebanon is a gage deposited in
the hands of mothers, wives, and sisters. I invite all of you to join
hands, in order to extricate ourselves from the crisis that has
engulfed us. We have already taken great strides in this direction,
and events seem to be moving towards others in the region. Sooner or
later, we shall attain the objectives we have set ourselves, and for
which we have struggled for five years…”.
It remains to
be said that Bashir wished all these fields of activity to be an
uniting factor, drawing the Lebanese people closer to each other. He
did not accept the situation thereby the Christian woman was entitled
to play a role in her community, whereas the right was denied to the
Muslim woman, in spite of modern progress and evolution. He hoped for
the day when women, in the not too distant future, would enjoy these
rights in all sections of Lebanese society, and that no limitations
would be placed on any category of female citizens.
CONCLUSION:
A meditation
on Bashir Gemayel’s thinking leads us, in conclusion, to stress the
following points:
Firstly: We
should not dwell in the apprehension and fears which we have lived
through during these long war years. Rather, we must exercise our
capacity to speak our minds, and tell the truth about facts in
Lebanon. And this truth is represented by a pluralistic society,
living various communities having their own distinctive civilization.
Secondly: We
should not be complacent in accepting this situation, but should exert
intensive efforts to reorganize these existing communities on stable
lines, in the fields which are most likely to draw them nearer to each
other, viz where they have points of convergence between them. On the
other hand, incessant efforts should be made to reduce those points of
divergence and dissension which are the cause of friction and conflict
between them. But all these fundamentals would be sterile if we do not
first erect a strong State that can oversee all these efforts and
develop them in the desired direction, ensuring their success and
continuity, so that they may not one day deviate from their course and
turn into confrontation or conflict . In this context, we quote from a
paragraph worthy of attention in the conclusion of Father Salim Abou’s
book: “ Bashir Gemayel, or the Spirit of a People” (p.294). In it, he
writes that Bashir Gemayel, in spite of his belief that the best
solution for the Lebanese society lies in secularization and
centralization, he considered that this realization of this idea was
impossible, except in the long-term. The society which is viable today
is the one that can live in its pluralism, within a strong State. And
between the weak State that we have experienced since 1943, and a
pluralist strong State, Bashir Gemayel chose the latter.
To conclude
our journey with Sheikh Bashir, let us meditate for a moment, to learn
lessons from his life, draw conclusions from his experience, and
pinpoint the objectives he sought to attain during his lengthy
national struggle. For they will constitute tranquilizing thoughts
hereafter, and guide our steps along the right path to finish the job
that he had started, and to fulfil what he had hopes to achieve before
he died as a martyr.
© Copyright 1998 Bashir
Gemayel Foundation
|
