Federalism Paper
by Peter Pan
Introduction.
This paper
addresses the virtues of adopting a federal system in Lebanon as the only system
that will offer everlasting peace and harmony to the two major religious
entities that inhabits this land.
Long notorious as one of the most
turbulent areas of the world, Lebanon nevertheless experienced an interlude of
peace between its civil war of 1860 and the beginning of the French Mandate in
1920. Within that period, the Lebanese population experienced autonomy and
harmony amongst different religious groups, based on a primitive Federal model.
European intervention in the Lebanese political system, trying to experiment
with the notion of co-existence in order to understand their relation with the
Muslim world, shattered the peaceful surrounding that the Lebanese people
enjoyed for a brief period of time. What ensued was a Unitarian system that
tried for 60 years to find some common ground between the two major groups in
Lebanon, but only succeeded in highlighting the differences rather that unifying
around the similarities.
The main
cause is Lebanon in its current geography, not its style of Governance; how we
elect and govern in Lebanon is debatable. A federal system is a governance
system, it does not shrink the geography of Lebanon, but it may expand its
horizon.
Failure
of the unitary system in Lebanon.
All along
since the declaration of independence in 1943, the Lebanese population have been
fed the lair of “inter-communal dialogue and communal coexistence”. This lair
continues to have some support amongst the political elite, defending it at any
cost. The intentions may be good, but can the deeds are attained by ignoring the
imbalance that is caused by trying to assimilate dissimilar groups?
Since
independence, and as a consequence of this forced co-existence, Lebanon has
endured 19 years of war (1958, 1969, 1973, 195-1991) and another comparable
number of political boycott in peacetime; this makes up around 40 years out of
60 years of independence! Clearly the formula is not working.
Professor
Walid Fares argues that “the Lebanese society was not Unitarian nor unitary and
therefore should not be governed by a centralizing power” (1). Professosor Fares
goes on to say “In a first section, I have demonstrated the evolution of two
ethno-religious communities, both "Lebanese" with different cultures, and
visions of History. The formation of Greater Lebanon in 1920 created a clearly
bi-National, bi-ethnic society, similar in many ways to Belgium, Canada, Cyprus
and Sudan. Unfortunately, the Lebanese legislators of the 1930s and 1940s,
although indicating that Lebanon has multiple "communities," chose the unitarian
form of Government to manage the national destiny of Lebanon. On the one hand
they thought satisfying the various religious communities by establishing a
sectarian ratio of participation in power, but on the other hand did not
recognize the existence of a multi-ethnic society per say. That mistake was one
among others that set the country on fire since 1975.” (2)
Some of
the major consequences of a fragile Unitarian system are:
- Lebanon had 48 Prime Minister in 59 Years of
Independence, 5 in the last 10 years.
- 2 Major civil wars spanning 17 years, other
inter-communal wars for 3 years.
- A secular system that assign people to positions
based on their religion and which Priest or Sheikh recommends them.
- Non inclusive system, boycotted by Muslims for the
first 46 years, then by Christians for the next 13 years.
Bachir
Gemayel’s view of the lair of Co-existence.
Bachir
acknowledged the existence of two distinct communities that are different from a
historical and sociological point of view.
“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.” (3)
“ 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…”
Bachir was
alluding to a Federal system when he invited the “Other groups” to organise and
rally behind “their parties” to be able to negotiate a new outlook: “ 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…”
Current
Situation in Lebanon.
“Lebanon
lacks any overarching world view and instead features a plurality of
antagonistic—and often clashing—outlooks, with no single umbrella to bind and
hold them. Irreducible fault lines mark the Christian and Muslim outlooks, and
these cleavages periodically degenerate into open hostilities that tear apart
the very fabric of the Lebanese polity. Lebanon, after all, is the sum of
eighteen or so heterogeneous religious communities—Maronite and Eastern Orthodox
Christians, Sunni and Shi‘i Muslims, Druze, and a host of lesser denominations.
The usual analogies between Lebanon and Switzerland or Belgium, therefore, do
not hold, for these lack the intricacies of the Lebanese politico-religious
mosaic.” (4)
Marguerite Johnson identified
Christian nationalism in terms of their distinctive cultural identity in the
Middle East (5). The cultural character of the Christian community was rooted in
their religious separateness from the rest of the Near East and was nourished by
centuries of long cultural ties with Western Europe.
Both
religious communities in Lebanon harbour a certain amount of phobia and fear
vis-à-vis the other community; this phobia is rooted in demographical movement,
historical experience, and ideological orientation. Past and present experiences
of minority Christians under Islamic rules tell of tragic tales of servitude and
persecution. On the other hand, Muslims feel that they have a religious duty to
ally themselves with “Arabic” causes, and feel that the Christians might be
their “Achilles’ heel” hindering their objectives.
The
current “Islamisation” of Lebanon is not helping the situation, as it is
widening the chasm between the two communities.
“Although
it came into existence as a sovereign state due to Christian efforts, Lebanon
today is undergoing a steady Islamization that applies to the social, political,
and cultural domains. This has also involved massive demographic tampering. With
one stroke of the pen, in 1994 some 300,000 Muslims—roughly equivalent to 10
percent of Lebanon's population—were naturalized.” (6)
The
Syrian Factor.
Despite
all the articles and books detailing the military intervention of the Syrians in
Lebanon since the dawn of ages, and despite the presence of 40,000 regular
soldiers along with a larger unspecified number of intelligence operatives, as
an occupying force, the western world still looks at the Syrian as a pacifying
force rather than invaders! Lebanon today is one of the rare satellite states in
the entire world, yet for the Western world, the Syrian presence brings
stability to a very explosive region.
The
vicious circle that the Lebanese are enduring is that they world think they are
incapable of governing themselves, so the Syrian presence is needed; on the
other hand the Syrian are doing their best to fracture the Lebanese system, to
make sure that the world still holds the same view on this matter.
Debating democratically and freely
any political system is not allowed under Syrian hegemony, hence the need to
remove this factor before debating the benefits of a federal system. On the
other hand, educating the Lebanese population about such system, can be done
through Universities, assemblies, Internet, etc…
The case for a Federal System.
Introduction.
While the
United States, which adopted a federal constitution in 1787, is often regarded
as the first modern federation, the history of federalism is much older.
The first
documented federal system came into being among the ancient Isrealite tribes
over 3200 years ago. Of similar antiquity were the confederations of the Bedoiun
tribes and the Native confederacies in North America. (7)
In ancient
Lebanon, Phoenicians formed some kind of federations during their spurts of
independence.
Aradus
presided over three subordinate townships (Arrjan ii. 13); Berytus, which had no
king of its own, probably formed with Byblus a single kingdom; while Tripolis
consisted of a federation of three cities separated by a stadium from each
other, and provided a meeting-place for the federal council. The Major cities,
Tyr, Sydon, Byblos and Ugarite co-existed together whilst having independent
entities; they stopped short of a full federation, as their commercial interests
were more important than their unity.
Definition.
The word
came into English via French from Latin. Foederatus means "bound by treaty"
deriving from foedus: treaty and fidere: to trust.
The
earliest recorded use of the word in English was by religious 17th century
puritans who spoke of "federal theology" meaning a covenant between God and the
settlers in America. By late 17th and early I 18th centuries the use of the word
had evolved to include agreements between states. By 1721, for example, the term
"federation" was being used as meaning a "united league".
The major
difference between a Federation and a Confederation is that the latter regards
the major powers of the centralised government as being only advisory and not
binding.
Key
Characteristics of a Federal Union (8)
“The key
characteristics of a federal union bringing together independent states are as
follows:
1. Rule of
Law: Anarchic relations between them are replaced by the rule of law which is
guaranteed by common institutions. The law of the union is therefore superior to
the law of its member states in the fields defined by its constitution.
2. Law
enforcement: To ensure the rule of law these common institutions include
law-enforcement bodies such as an Executive and Courts which have independent
law-enforcement powers and responsibilities.
3.
Applicability: The law of the union is applicable both to its member states and
crucially to its individual citizens living within its borders.
4.
Independent legislative & policy-making institutions: These common institutions
have their own independent legislative process which is distinct from those of
the member states. Their laws do not require ratification in the parliaments of
its member states.
5.
Democracy: The common institutions, as well as those of the member states, are
democratic.
6.
Constitutionally defined responsibilities: The common institutions are asked to
implement common policies where problems are shared in order that these problems
may be addressed jointly, but no more. Other levels of government would do
everything else. The areas to be addressed in common would normally include
commercial policy, monetary union, and security issues. Other policy areas could
also be included. The constitution of the union would set down these powers. “
General
causes for Federalism.
Federalism is based on one of the
following criteria:
1-
The dissolution of empires, as in British empire in
North America in 1776, the Russian empire in 1917, the USSR in 1991,the German
Empire in 1918, the Nazi "empire" in 1945 and Yugoslavia and Bosnia in the
present.
2-
Regional variation (Language, Religion, Culture):
India, Nigeria, Switzerland, Canada, the USSR and Russia.
3-
Ease of administration: Whew even unitary states
like France and England and Australia are divided into departments or counties.
From the
above definitions, the proposed Federal System in Lebanon is surely based on the
second criteria of Federalism. The proposed federation will not be the first
Federal System in the world based on religious hegemony, as countries such as
Nigerian and India already are under such a system and other countries such as
Cyprus, Sudan (9) and Bosnia are very well down this path under the auspices of
the UN.
Previous
attempts to have such a system, in countries such as the former republic of
Yugoslavia, have failed due to the attempt of one of the major religions to
assimilate the other religion into its sphere of influence. Actually, for one
thing, those same conflicts dispelled the idea of a full “co-existence” between
Christianity and Islam (refer to: Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia, Sudan,
Philippines, Egypt, etc..).
Of all the
conflicts/divisions in the world, be it cultural (e.g. Australian White vs.
Aborigines, Canadian White vs. Inuit) or linguistic (e.g. Switzerland) or
regional and nationalistic (e.g. England, Wales, Scotland…), the most intolerant
of them all is the religious division.
Example
of a successful Federation Based on Religious variances - Nigeria. (10)
“As a
principle of organizing government federalism seems to provide an ideal
arrangement for the kind of unity in diversity, and local autonomy within a
framework of national cohesion, which Muslims need in order to realize their
religious and social aspirations. Federalism provides a constitutional
arrangement which shares power and resources among different levels of
government, that is the central and regional governments, enabling each
government to exist separately and free from interference by the other, and to
operate directly on persons and property within its territory. Federal
arrangements give the central government authority over matters of common
concern such as defence, foreign affairs, currency and major roads, while
regional or state governments take care of matters of local concern, and the two
levels of government concurrently administer matters of both national and local
importance.
According to
Professor B. O. Nwabueze, modern federalism, which originated in the
constitution of the United States, is recognized as an ideal method of
organizing government in a country that has extensive land size and a population
of diverse nationalities, such as Nigeria. Through federalism, ‘the differing
interests and circumstances of the component groups are accommodated while at
the same time securing the peace and stability of the country and its survival
against the forces of division and conflict inherent in the heterogeneous nature
of the society.’
Federalism
therefore allows scope for each of the constituent groups to retain and enhance
its institutions, traditions and practices and to pursue its local interests and
aspiration within the national framework, while at the same time participating
with the other component groups in matters of common interest and concern.”
“Muslim
identity in Nigeria”
“By religion, history and
culture, and on account of holding a set of common aspirations, Muslims in
Nigeria form a distinct group. Although in Nigeria individuals claim a variety
of concurrent identities, ethnic, religious and regional, for most Muslims
the Islamic identity is paramount. This is of course in line with the demand
of the Islamic faith that believers constitute a single umma, subsuming
and standing above all divisions.
The assertion of Islamic
identity is however more pronounced among Muslims in the North, essentially
because the religious identity is supported and consolidated by common
geographical location, political background and historical experience.
Islam, and by
extension the Sharia, is one of the dominant elements which have woven
themselves together to constitute the North’s distinct identity. In taking the
decision in the 1950s to introduce the Federal system as solution to the problem
of coexistence among Nigerian groups an important consideration of the British
colonial government was the need to avoid conflict and friction by allowing
sufficient autonomy to the constituent political units to pursue their various
local interests. For Muslims in the North sustaining the Islamic cultural
identity was an important reason for choosing federalism. The opportunity to
organize their local affairs in accordance with the teachings of the Sharia was
in the forefront of considerations for subscribing to federalism. For two
reasons the Sharia occupies a prime position as a collective concern of Nigerian
Muslims.” (14)
Objective of the proposed Federal System in
Lebanon.
The main
aim of such federal system is to encourage “co-existence” whilst protecting
“individuality”, there would be no physical boundaries, however people have to
register in their own states once they rent or buy a house for identification
purposes.
The
protection of various religious groups will be protected under the federal
system, no majority group can intrude on other groups independency and
democracy.
“No matter
who enjoys the greatest numbers, the fact that the country is based on
multiplicity of communities makes the concept of simple majority irrelevant.
Neither Maronites, nor Shiites can claim being a total majority in Lebanon, nor
can Sunni, Druse or Melkite claim similar realities. No community alone can form
a majority, for all groups are minorities, if taken alone.
Take for
instance Canada. Although the English-speaking people are superior in numbers,
and the speaking population is inferior in numbers nationwide, the first group
cannot use the mere fact of their numbers to impose a specific identity on
Quebec. There are two (main) cultural groups in Canada, irrespective of numbers.
In Belgium, the same concept is prevalent. Same goes for Switzerland.” (11)
At the
Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for Lebanon, Reverend Jean Ducruet,
President Emeritus of Saint Joseph University in Beirut, who played an important
role in the final editing of the Message of the Synod, made clear the meaning of
'consensual democracy.'
He
believes that strengthening national unity requires a firmly established
political system in which all confessions share in the making of national
decisions and in which no one confession can impose on the nation what is not
acceptable to the tradition of the other confessions. This system cannot
function at the mercy of the ideology of the majority. Numerical majority is
not compatible with consensual democracy. It can only be conceivable in a
country without fundamental diversity. Consensual democracy necessitates a
coalition government and a mutual veto on decisions that are seen as contrary to
the vital interests of any of the communities. Official posts should be
distributed in a manner by which no one group will dominate positions of
responsibility by virtue of its power and number. This system requires the
self-autonomy of some departments, such as the departments of personal
status, which would remain the prerogatives of the various groups (Slim 1997:
69; Message 1996: 65-66 French).
Antoine Najm adds to this by defining
such system: “Composed in this manner, the state and a system of consensual
democracy constitute so-called federalism. In other words and based on the
Exhortation, the formula of living together or coexistence in Lebanon is a
federal concept. It is a federalism which is tailored to Lebanon's body and
answers to its needs -- it is accepted willingly and is not forcibly imposed. “
(12)
Lebanon’s Neighbours view of a Federal System:
It must be
said that the whole region neighbouring Lebanon will be opposing such a system,
as it will spell trouble for the governing minorities in Syria, Iraq, etc…
Syria will
be the most affected by such a system, as it will open the eyes of the large
majorities and minorities to the fact that they can share in the rule of the
country without being subservants to the Alawites. Sunnis, Druz and Christian
Orthodox and Assyrians will be actively seeking a copycat solution in Syria;
this will destabilize the current dictatorial Regime. In the event of such a
Federal system propagating into Syria, the prospect of a bigger “Near Eastern”
federation will be more viable than the current SSNP ideology.
As for
Israel, the dilemma is wether to accept a successful neutral entity next to its
border, where Israel cannot hold any “regional” trump cards and is vulnerable to
the new entity’s commercial prowess, or wether to keep a divided country where
they can use it for “regional negotiations” and to advance their commercial
interests in the region.
It is
interesting that after the Baath party crumble in Iraq, following the recent
Iraqi war, a Federation of Iraqi states, based on Religious and Ethnic grouping
is hot on the plates of the decision makers in Washington.
Demographic Changes due to the implementation of a Federal System.
With the
introduction of a federal system, some shift of population (e.g. Christian from
some Beqaa areas) will occur on a gradual basis. This phenomenon is already
happening both internally and externally (just have a look at the number of
people immigrating because of the political impasse) and it will accelerate with
the declaration of a federal system. People will be swapping houses and lands
gradually, and the laws of the state he/she is in will govern whoever elects to
stay in a region.
It is my
believe that a certain quota/percentage should be set to protect the hegemony of
each state, a state can negotiate/enforce a shift of population once this quota
is reached. Failure to do so will result in another religious confrontation in
years to come.
Neutrality and Federalism.
The key
issue that will be difficult to get the Muslims to buy into is the neutrality of
Lebanon in a federal system. In order to have a uniform foreign policy, where
all the federal states are in harmony and decisions can me made easily, the
Lebanese Central government should be Neutral to any regional or international
conflict, this means that you can send aid to whomever you want, but you cannot
side with anyone on any issue.
Neutrality
is not a necessity to implement a Federal system, but having it will alleviate
future conflict in both houses of representatives, where different groups will
use the “vote-blocking” powers against each other.
As
compromises are needed to reach an acceptable system, neutrality may not be
fully achieved; even Switzerland ended up being a member of the UN, hence having
to take some tough decisions. This issue should be worked out in details when
the notion of Federalism starts becoming acceptable to the majority of the
Lebanese.
Civic
Laws.
At each
level of government, power is separated into legislative, executive and judicial
branches. This will insure that no branch of government would become too
powerful. Through a system of "checks and balances" power is restricted. For
example, Congressional legislation may be vetoed by the President or invalidated
by the Supreme Court. Similarly, at the local level, the mayor and city
administrators serve in the executive branch, an elected council forms the
legislative branch and local courts are the judicial branches.
To
implement such laws should be a straightforward exercise; a person should abide
by the rules of the states he is in, in case someone commits a crime and take
off to another state, he should be extradited, according to set procedures, to
face the music in the state of offence (regardless of cause).
The
Constitution should prohibit states from depriving any person of "equal
protection of the laws." The same prohibition should apply to the federal
courts.
Equal
protection may be threatened when government treats a specific classification of
individuals, such as women or non-residents, differently from others similarly
situated. In all of these cases, the burden is on government to establish a link
between the purpose of the law and the classification it creates
All states
must protect free speech as it goes to the heart of democracy by guaranteeing
access to information so that citizens are well informed. Attempts to limit
speech in connection with elections, for example, by limiting campaign spending,
should be held unconstitutional on the basis that they limit public debate.
Certain limits on campaign contributions should be upheld.
Radicalism and Religious intolerance.
One of the
main objectives to be achieved through a Federal Lebanon, is to force people
into a moderate thinking, radical parties cannot survive a federal system as
this will reflect on the State economy where such party rules, hence people will
see the difference between a moderately elected party in one state and a
radically elected party in another.
An Islamic
state based on Shari3a will not survive in a federal system, as it will be
deprived of potential revenues generated by businesses and tourists preferring
to settle in the other state(s); furthermore, its own inhabitant will realise
the difference between their state and the other state(s), come election time
they will make sure that their choice is the right one.
Nigeria,
again, poses as a good example of how Federal laws overwrite state and local
laws to ensure that democracy and freedom of speech is adhered to in all the
states under the federation.
Some
details regarding the Functioning of the proposed Federal System.
Some of
the minute details about the functioning of such Federal system are:
1-
States have their own parliaments and prime
ministers/premiers, the state’s inhabitants elect them and they are responsible
for stately affairs ONLY. State parliament cannot interfere with any federal
issue; they manage internal state security, schooling, health, civic laws and
low-level foreign affairs (promoting the state, handing over aids, etc…).
2-
Priests and Sheiks will not be running the show, and
should never be allowed to interfere in such a system. Having a federal system
based on religious groups majority, does not mean that you will have another
"Inquisition" or an "Islamic Republic". This is a democratic system that may
have some elements of law in each state, that reflects the religious nature of
its constituents (Official Holidays, offensive behaviour, etc)
3-
The Federal System is made up of an upper and lower
House of Representatives.
4-
The upper house is based on proportional votes and
equally divided in numbers by state; Let’s say that we will have 100 senators,
50 from each state (for the sake of having 2 states for the argument); the first
50 vote getters in the Senate race get elected from each state.
5-
The Lower house structure is debatable, but the
bottom line is that it will be based on numbers; it can include overseas votes,
etc… What makes the lower house unique is it is representing the people’s
demographics rather than states.
6-
For any bill to pass through the house, it needs
both houses to approve it; some bills even will need 2/3 majority in the upper
house (like sending troops to war).
7-
If a state wants to send humanitarian aid to the
Palestinians, by all mean they can do it, good on them for being compassionate;
however a state cannot engage in any military actions of any kind.
8-
At federal level the composition of the upper house
will be more sectarian than the lower house, and this is the guarantee for both
major religions that their rights and independency are not compromised.
9-
The president can be of any religious denomination,
elected directly by the people, with ceremonic duties and some legal duties
(like appointing the prime minister from the party who can get a majority in
parliament).
For the
normal citizen, the federal system is non-sectarian, as he/she will be governed
by the states at 95% of the cases; people should be appointed on merits, people
get the same chances regardless of religion or race.
Bachir Gemayel, the Lebanese Front
and the Lebanese Forces view of The Federal System.
In its
only major “Strategic document”, after an enclave in December 1980 in the
Convent of Mar Roukous – Awkar, the Lebanese Front Leadership stated:
“The
Lebanese Front believes in the necessity of reconsidering the structural formula
which has determined the politics of Lebanon since 1943, with a view to
modifying it in such a way as to prevent any friction or clash between the
members of the same Lebanese family.
This
reconsideration might issue in an alteration of the structural formula into some
kind of decentralization or federation or confederation within a comprehensive
framework of a single unified Lebanon. Such has been the trend of the modern
constitutional systems throughout the world. The aim of the alteration is to
ensure that no disaster like the many disasters which befell Lebanon since 1840
will recur in the future. The new formula will be agreed upon among the Lebanese
themselves in a climate devoid of compulsion or intimidation, whether arising
from within or without. “ (13)
This
statement came from the following political pillars: Camille Chamoun, Pierre
Gemayel, Abbot Boulos Naaman, Charles Malik, Fouad Afram Boustany and Edouard
Honein. Those pillars were collectively the Godfathers of Bachir’s political
career and the Lebanese Forces birth.
Bachir
Gemayel was part of the Lebanese Front group and supported its decisions
wholeheartedly. It wasn’t until he became president and was surprised by the
warmth of the Muslim support (truthful or not) that he started having some
doubts about the Federal system and decided to give the centralised government,
under his auspices, another go at running the country.
The
Lebanese Forces continued to support and call for a discussion on a Federal
System all throughout its history. This call took a sense of urgency after the
end of the civil war, as it became more obvious that the Christian community
lost all influence in the post-taef agreement, and the only way to redress this
imbalance is to negotiate a federal system.
The
current Leader of the Lebanese Forces, Dr Samir Geagea, stated on January 5,
1990: "For the past 15 years there has been unannounced partition in effect.
When we propose federalism, it is to move from partition to a more unifying
step. I think other internal sides are now convinced that no one can dominate
Lebanon.
"We all
exist here ... If we do not listen to each other, the internal side of the
crisis will persist and might lead to solutions unacceptable to all, such as
partition or maybe worse ... I urge all officials to recognize each other, for
no one can cancel anyone."
The Druze view of the Federal
System.
The Druze are in agreement with the
Christians on the subject of Federalism, as they do have defined areas that they
would have some control in a federation, rather than being another minority in a
centralised government.
The late Kamal Jumblat clearly stated
this by saying: " Lebanon was found to be a federal state, a state of Canton,
everything in Lebanon failed expect the federal system" (14).
What Walid Jumblat is denying today is
mainly due to the Syrian threat that is hanging over his head; they know full
well that they can eliminate him physically; in the same way they executed his
father in 1977.
The Sunnis View of the Federal
System.
The Sunnis
were the major winners from the Taef accord; for although they are not
numerically superior, and although they fought the war in Lebanon with someone
else’s blood (Palestinians and Syrians), they reaped the most rewards out of the
Saudi Petro-Dollar sponsored Taef. The current Sunni leadership is happy with
the Taef, even partially implemented, and do not want any changes. With a Syrian
withdrawal and some pressure from other groups and from some Sunni
traditionalist (Solh, Dana, etc..) the political landscape may change.
The Shi’as View of the Federal
System.
With the benefit of a “theoretical “
demographic superiority, by virtues of excluding the Lebanese migrants and a
certain uncontrollable growth trend amongst their ranks, the Shi’as prefer a
unitary system based on popular vote and devoid of confessionalism. This
numerical rule system was called upon by the Speaker of the House, Nabih Berri
and their ultimate religious leader, Abdel-Amir Kabalan (15). The ultimate aim
of the Shi’as base power (i.e. Hizbullah) is an Islamic Republic in all or parts
of Lebanon. Provided a Syrian withdrawal, the main stream traditional Shia’a may
regain some lost popularity and come to the negotiation table regarding this
subject.
Conclusion.
The current political system in
Lebanon has proven beyond doubt its failure, times and times again. A
co-existence where we have to put a Sheik alongside a Priest is for media
consumption not for reality. A true co-existence is when we acknowledge and
respect our differences and act accordingly.
Federalism not only force a more
secular system into the states, it gives the population the security they need
to trust each other; furthermore it will eliminate the “family based” tribal
system that thrived in a divided country (Gemayel, Chamoun, Lahoud, Irslan,
Jumblat, Hamade, Assaad, Murr, Karami, Murr, Harriri, etc..); actually that is
one of the main reason that all of the “traditional families” are against it!
Another group that is against it is the coalition of the leftists, their reason
is simple, without misery they cannot survive! No one will listen to their
propaganda in a system were “second-class” citizens do not exist.
A federal system in Lebanon and the
ones envisaged for Cyprus and Iraq will for certain have a ripple effect in the
region; it is Ironic that such a system can ultimately make Antoun Saadeh’s
dream come true, through a bigger democratic federation encompassing the
countries of the so-called “Fertile-Crescent”.
The biggest hurdle facing the debate on the merits of a Federal System is
Lebanon is the lack of education and exposure to this subject, made taboo by the
current puppet regime and fuelled by the Syrian occupation. Federalism is not a
mean to divide Lebanon; it is a mean to unite various groups in a common
denominator called Lebanon.
1.
"Al-Fikr al-Lubnani wa Utruhat al-Taareeb". The
Lebanese Thought and the Thesis of Arabization." Dar el Sharq. Beirut. 1980
2.
Idem
3.
Bashir Gemayel -
“Al-Qabas” in 1980.
4.
Is There Still a Lebanon? Habib C. Malik
5.
Johnson Marguerite, Arabs who look to the West; with
guns and crosses, Lebanon’s Christians try to survive, Time, March 5, v123 p 29,
1984
6.
Idem
7.
Ronald Watts, Comparing Federal Systems in the
1990s.
8.
Stephen Woodard
(from Ventotene,
Federalism and Politics, The Ventotene Papers of the Altiero Spinelli
Institute for Federalist Studies, Ventotene, 1995)
9.
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/001005/2000100510.html
10.
Dr Muhammed Tabiu, MFR - Faculty of Law, Bayero
University, Kano International Conference on Sharia 14th April, 2001, Organised
by the Nigerian Muslim Forum, London, United Kingdom
http://www.shariah2001.nmnonline.net/tabiu_paper.htm
11.
Professor Walid Fares - MultiCulturalism is
Lebanon's Identity – www.wlo-usa.org
12.
Envisioning a Formula for Living Together in
Lebanon In Light of the Apostolic Exhortation – Antoine Najem -
http://www.mari.org/JMS/april98/Envisioning_a_Formula.htm
13.
The Lebanon We Want To Build – Lebanese Front – 23
December 1980
14.
Kamal Jumblat " Loubnan Fi waki3ihi wa Mourtajah”
1957
15.
Annahar – Feb 13th, 2003.
|
