Could not agree more. We have the right as different cultural and ethnic groups to have autonomy. Because of our manifold historical experiences, traditions, views, loyalties, educational systems, languages, etc. we should have a federal government. Much like what is proposed for Iraq.

ERRATUM:

Different ethnic groups indeed; but i hope anonymous is educated enough to know by now that “ethnic groups” are NOT the exact counterparts of “cultural ie sectarian groups” in Lebabnon.

I am sure anonymous does not amalgamate Federalism and Zionist-like “ethnicism” that relates to “racism”.

Thank you anonymous for your contribution.

Thank you Mustapha for your open mind, and for granting me the privilege of appearing on your great blog as a guest writer.

PS: Please feel free to edit my bad english (english is neither my first nor my second language).

Erratum,

I’m not sure I understood your note. But the federalism I’m for is geographically based and not demographically based. Again much like IRaq.

So, Anonymous, what do you make of small areas who happen to have a different religion than that of the majority in that “geographical area”?
I’m talking about Maronites in Jezzine and Akkar, Shiites in Jbeil, Sunnites in the south…etc

Thinking out loud here:

Basically Lebanon and the Lebanese have been at odds over two different approaches. Unfortunately we have not been mature enough to debate these issues. So we had skirmishes about them in the past, and finally a civil war.

The war is now over but we still won’t talk much about these issues. (I am calling them “issues” and “approaches” and being vague on purpose, to avoid narrow or inflammatory language for now)

Decentralization/Federalism/whatshamacallit would be a good way to settle those issues. Let every major sect run a “mohafazat” (which won’t nor should be 100% of one sect). Then see the wonders of competition.

No more excuses. Leader A will run Mohafaza A and won’t be able to blame anyone else for his problems (other than the Zionists of course).

Badly run sectors will see internal pressure to straighten out or face election changes and/or people moving to the next door mohafazt with better schools or jobs or whatever.

We will all still live together, not have borders intermarry and go to school together. The only thing different is maybe the political system will work.

Of course there’s still the problem of foreign policy, but could be solved.

Thinking out loud here:

Basically Lebanon and the Lebanese have been at odds over two different approaches. Unfortunately we have not been mature enough to debate these issues. So we had skirmishes about them in the past, and finally a civil war.

The war is now over but we still won’t talk much about these issues. (I am calling them “issues” and “approaches” and being vague on purpose, to avoid narrow or inflammatory language for now)

Decentralization/Federalism/whatshamacallit would be a good way to settle those issues. Let every major sect run a “mohafazat” (which won’t nor should be 100% of one sect). Then see the wonders of competition.

No more excuses. Leader A will run Mohafaza A and won’t be able to blame anyone else for his problems (other than the Zionists of course).

Badly run sectors will see internal pressure to straighten out or face election changes and/or people moving to the next door mohafazt with better schools or jobs or whatever.

We will all still live together, not have borders intermarry and go to school together. The only thing different is maybe the political system will work.

Of course there’s still the problem of foreign policy, but could be solved.

I don’t understand why clerics from any denomination should attend political gatherings. Instead of concentrating on federalism, maybe we should start talking about separation of church/mosque and state.

PA.

In addition to foreign policy what about taxes? Does each area conduct its own foreign trade? Shouldn’t there be a basic list of inviolable rights? Does each decentralized area maintain its own army?
What will bind them together? What will prevent each area from ultimately proclaiming itself as a separate state?

I don’t understand why my name is mentioned in Kamal’s entry. I’m not in any way sectarian. But anyways, cantonization, federalism, or whatever you want to call it is a (I hate to use the word) a stupid idea!

Lebanon is tiny and I think we can live with one another happily as long as personal freedoms are protected and respected. After all we’re not that different ethnically, so what makes us differnt? our religion or sect? BIG DEAL, people! so what, if we’re not a religiously homogenous country, we split up? Is this a GREAT solution?

Administrative decentralization is definitely the way to go. and the current government policy statement endorses this move and encourages the bolstering of the municipalities’ authorities and mandates, such as for instance collecting local taxes to build a road or open a park or a library instead of the money going to beirut. What’s bad about this idea?

Plus, Mustapha brought it up, he said that what do you do with for instance Druze in the South and the Jabal, you relocate them so they could be in one area and become their own country? Puh-lease!!!

In my family, at least, we don’t identify with the sect as much as we identify with the region. We’re “Shmeliyye” or “Traboulsieh”, or originally “Ikkariyye”…and find Southerners (even from the same sect) far away from us. So bad idea, Kamal.

Small areas, big areas, it doesn’t really matter. If we were to assume that Christians and Muslims are on different ends of a spectrum (which is not necessarily true) we can have states with laws in the middle of spectrum. Whoever does not feel comfortable living in his state is free to move.

Secondly as far as state versus national prerogatives those can be delineated according to what we agree and disagree about. Taxation should be conducted at both levels in an equitable per capita manner.

What federal government in the world has individual armies? They might have local contingents but are all under the command of one commander in chief. And the more I read all of your points the more I realize the futility of the argumentation. There are numerous federal governments in the world that have magically resolved the issues you brought up.

Unless you can come up with grievances unique to Lebanon you don’t have a leg to stand on. The geographical conundrum does not have a leg to stand either as I mentioned above. The system is flexible enough to accommodate such instances. The other thing is foreign policy:

1- We can have a confederal country; of course we would not be part of the UN if that happens
2- Pursue a disciplined policy of neutrality.
3- Or we can realize that if we don’t agree on a foreign policy then we should not be a united country in the first place. Let’s grow up and face these issues head on, instead of sweeping them under the rug and then fight to the death every dozen years.

If you think that there is not much that separates, then sister you are delusional. I can drive for 30 minutes on a Beirut street and it would feel like I drove through 3 different continents. From cultural differences, to historical differences, to linguistic differences, to educational differences, to religious differences actually I challenge you to find me one thing, just one thing that is common among all the Lebanese.

And again who said anything about moving; people can live where they want. It’s not like we are splitting the country up.

And lastly, regionalism is basic component of the proposed federalism. It’s probably a bad idea to have the state of the Maronites, the state of the Druze, etc. It will be based on localities that will either have minorities, majorities, or equal demographic apportionments.

You all bitch about the sectarian system, well this is a way to abandon sectarianism without destroying the consensual aspect of governing Lebanon. Other than that we are not left with much, and any move towards secularism within a unitary government will lead to conflict (there is not one single majority in Lebanon).

And lastly all of you are thinking about this in the wrong way. You think that state laws will ensure the rights of the different groups that live in those states. Wrong, it is the power of the individual state as exercised in national government decision making that ensures the rights of the different groups. State laws are minor, national laws is what matters. If you enlightened folks don’t want the Maronites president, Sunni PM, Shiite speaker to make those decisions, then what we can have is the senator from the North, the senator from Bekaa, etc. be making those decisions on behalf of the people of the North, the people of Bekaa regardless of their religion.

Here is a start. Read Arendt Lijphart, read about consociationalism (what we have in Lebanon now) and its limitations. Contrast those limitations with the federal arrangements that you know about (US, Canada, Australia, Switzerland etc.) and then let’s engage in this discussion.

Hold your horses guys,

Lebanon is smaller than Connecticut.
Imagine Connecticutans talking about how to best disect Connecticut into different governing districts.

have a sense of scale will you.

The issue was brought up before: that of minorities in this supposed cantons. What will happen with them? They move? They stay? If they stay what happens? All be well? Look to the division of India and Pakistan half a century ago to see that minorities weren’t respected (yes, religious minorities). And they still have issues today. So by splitting up lebanon, you haven’t solved its core dilemna - how to treat with the other.

And does it really matter if you drive for half an hour and everything changes with the population? That happens in quite alot of places. But with enough tolerance and understanding (this all comes with the abolishment of ignorance…), this shouldn’t be such a problem.

for the opponents of federalism,

- federalism is not a stupid idea because the most successful countries are federations.

- federalism is independent of size or surface area.

- we ALREADY are a federation, the only question is do we recognize that or not.

- federation is our only guarantee to not repeat the civil war. all other ideas may or may not work.

- each federation will have minorities in it. nobody has to move.

We already are a federation? I’m waiting for a more elaborate explanation. It is a guarantee? Convince me.

Japan is not a federation.

Read up on Singapore. A non federation with issues like lebanon can succeed.

There is nothing like an educated comment to make you see the light. I am luckier than most of you, I don’t need to drive 30 min. to change scenery, just to walk 10 min. I live in New York City. I can go from Africa, to India, to Greece, to Italie in half an hour. But obviously that cannot work, so I am writng the Mayor to urgently advocate a federal organization. People from different religions and ethnicity simply cannot live and work together, blah blah blah. If this is the voice of our youth, Lebanon is in much deeper trouble than I thought.

PA.

*federation is our only guarantee to not repeat the civil war*

There are no guarantees…..the US constitution was completed 1787 and its Bill of Rights 1789. It had a civil war in 1860-65. 560M dead, over 400M wounded.

Love of culture and heritage as Lebanese should be the uniter….

“Not a single Muslim cleric of ours showed up”

That´s because (most) of the Hambali among them are on the Saudi/Diqtcheeni payroll, the bulk of the Ja´afarites being agents of Iran and/or Israel.

Thanks god, not all Muslim leaders have become puppets of the enemies of the Ummah…Yesterday, Sheikh M. Al-Naseem the grand Mufti of Birmingham showed there are still Muhammedan clerics with real backbone: “Tony Blair is a liar [...] So we cannot give our blind trust to the Government[...]There seems to be a directive o target Muslims. Terrorists can be anybody- we will have to see wether the bombers are truly Muslims”

Wow! As far as I´m concerned, the guy is the greatest Muslim thinker since the days of Avicen of Bukhara

Size is not the issue.

Call it decentralization and everybody will love it.

One of my points is that such is a way to resolve debates that are NEVER solved in Lebanon and cause wars and unrest.

Walid’s PSP, Hezbo, the different Christian groups, Hariri etc..all say they have a program. But they never get to implement it because of the “other side”, and because they are not really in charge of the government.

Put the bastards to the test: let Joumblatt tax the Chouf for his social stuff, let Hezbo run public schools in the South, let the Christians fight corruption and clans in their areas etc… Then the less successful will imitate the more successful and/or adapt and/or lose elections and/or see people leave their areas for the one NEXT DOOR, instead of leaving the country altogether.

That is one way of getting accountability. Otherwise 50 years from now, Joumblatt will still be telling us that his ideas work, and that the Druze want them, and that Palestine is his top priority etc. Same for all the other groups…And we’ll never get rid of them.

That is one way average PEOPLE in Lebanon will hang responsibilty around the neck of these SOBs and thereby get the country to improve for the sake of ALL.

federalism itself is not a stupid idea– but a sectarian-based federation is. like doha, i am all for administrative decentralization, and i hope she is right that it is on it’s way. almost all the arguments you pro-federalists are putting forward hold equally true for a purely regional federation (and not just your sectarian one). the kind of federation i’d like to see is one of strong, somewhat self-sufficient mohafazat, a la the american states, french departements, etc. lebanon may be tiny, but this is largely moot– in any country, large or small, the central government will always be too busy to pay adequate attention to local issues.

people will let go of sectarianism when they don’t need it anymore, i.e. when their basic needs are being met by the state instead of the zu’ama etc. strong local government would help, both literally and ideologically, by providing better services while concurrently undermining the patronage system.

federalism based on religious identity is a terrible, terrible idea. it would foment xenophobia, racism, and conflict; it would instantly make lebanon a pariah state in the eyes of the international community. to combat sectarianism, the lines between sects need to soften and blur, not be reinforced by physical borders!! a sectarian federation is the lazy answer to today’s problems, but it’s also the most morally reprehensible, and in my opinion, would almost undoubtedly lead to renewed civil violence in lebanon.

Mr Abdul certainly has a point
How can we trust serial liars and war criminals like Blair and his favourite Israeli volk/pop idol herr general Sharon?

Great discussion, I am with Doha and Carine on administrative decentralization as the key. By the way what a great string of comments, and then we have Simon Walsh and Abdel Qhaleq parachuting in with the most ridiculous of comments. At first I was puzzled! what brought them here? What is the linked to lebanese national governance? but then I made the connection, some commenter mentioned New York City, and NYC is in the US, the US is governed by neo imperialist fascist Bush and his ally is Blair and so these comments are of course totally appropirate and go with the overall flow of the discussion.

Are suggesting that minorities living in Kesrwan or Da7ieh enjoy their full rights as citizens now? And ONE MORE TIME: these people rights will not be secured at the state level but at the national level. These people aspirations are going to be vocalized nationally from representatives of other states.

The size of the country is irrelevant.

I’m going to take this a step back. Do we as Lebanese have a common will to live together? The statistics and research are on the side of NO. Check out this excellent piece by Simon Haddad.

Christian–Muslim Relations and Attitudes towards the Lebanese State

So Mustapha, “Size does matter” !?… Well as Joseywales (great comments thank you) says, size is NOT an issue. Who cares about size of the kada’ or muhafazat?? We are talking about people, people who would like to stop thinking about sectarian issues and try to build a viable society…

By the way, Mustapha, please check about the density of population in Connecticut before comparing.
And Mic, your Japan example is in fact a counter-example; let me remind you that Japan is one of the “purest” countries in terms of ethnic homogeneity. Please (re-)read the history of modern Japan, which functioned as a complete “vase clos” until 1870 and far beyond. Singapore to my limited knowledge is rather fascistic, and not a “true democracy”. But I will have to read on the subject.
And Doha, and Carine, you have to understand that you ARE perceived as sectarian by the people who regularly read your posts. Sectarians “qui s’ignorent”, but still… Others may avoid being sectarian out of a certain “snobisme: Average people (of both sects) are sectarian; well i am not!”.
Hummbumm the USA are not a fascist entity (while Israel might be); the USA are a true democracy -far from perfect but true- for their own american people of all ethnic and religious background. As to their foreign policy its effects are worst than fascism, and are to be countered by all means.
PA from NYC, your sense of humor is fun, but your intellectual stance is dishonest: NYC and the rest of the USA (the USA is known nowadays as an “etat-monde”: a “world-state(?)”) have managed to survive because of the constitution of the US federation, and your point is somewhat biased: we are not talking about minor minorities like in NYC, but of two essential constituents of a country who will have to manage to live together and build a State adefaut of a nation. If you want to engage in sterile comparisons, I might present lots of counter-examples: Belgium (Wallons and flamands maybe compared to Christians and Muslims), Switzerland (Francophone and Romans maybe compared to Christians and Muslims)… As an example, up till recently I was an indirect employee of the “Republic of Geneva”; the only relation I had with Berne was for the centralized Tax bureau.

To other commentators arguing about geographical issue: Geography (as size) is irrelevant. We are discussing a kind of sectarian federation: ie Christians voting for Christians and Muslims for Muslims (That would be very efficient in a federal state). We should not be afraid of enforcing even more political confessionalism; so that christian and muslim sects stop their negative reaction to each other logic and engage in a positive development logic.

“Deux négations ne font pas une nation”: Naccache was right. As long as we are obsessed by our sect power, representativity, or performance, we will never progress. Let’s face it: Muslims are afraid (à tort ou à raison) of a certain mythical image Christians want to enforce on THEIR Muslim society; Christians are afraid (à tort ou à raison) of a not so mythical Arabo-Muslim image Muslims want to enforce on THEIR Christian society. They are both trapped in this action-reaction sclerosis.

We will never build a Lebanese Nation; Muslim’s nation is the “umma” and Christians in reaction are ready to engage in any other “national avenue” to differentiate themselves from the “umma”. Those are the societal perceptions. Sad? Maybe maybe not. But true!

What about a binational state?…
With a rigid sectarian federalism, and under a kind of a 50/50 Christian/Muslim first amendment that guarantees no sect will enforce its own image on the OTHER, while guaranteeing its right to engage in any local avenue it deems compatible with its own social ambitions. ONLY WHEN respective social representations are guaranteed to be respected will we be able to build a State, where our common “Love of culture and heritage of the state of Lebanon” will be able to grow.

(to be continued elsewhere…
excuse me mustapha, it was too long…)

I was being humorous kamal referring back to the two commentators from Marxist land. To borrow a line from that Chris Rock movie head of state ( I think):
“God bless America, and no one else”

Phew.
I find PA from NYC brilliantly expressing my convictions, so will spare you any explanations :)

As for Kamal calling my a “pseudo-secularist”, I wonder why he appended the “pseudo”. Is it my name?

I do not choose my name, but I choose my beliefs!!
This is also how I will raise my kids. Exposing them to the various ideas and religions and letting them choose their way by themselves, as opposed to being mindless sheep following dogmas.
(I was never raised as a Muslim, despite my name)

Hussein don’t be so neurotic about you first name
Nor the way you were raised or will raise your hypothetical children
It has nothing to do with the discussion

Hey, my name is Kamal…
Cool.
Keep it sane.

I don’t agree with you Kamal, Lebanon is way more complex than a 50/50 division along sectarian lines. Do you really think for eg. that the Armenians, GO and GC will fall all over themselves to join the Marounistan federal state under the Aoun/Geagea/Sfeir troika? Or that a muslim federal state with Berri/Hariri/Hezb. is viable? If you do I have a bridge to sell you (in NY). The most murdurous fights during the war were between members of the same sects. We should be working on our civil society and institutions instead of rearranging 17 internally splintered religious groups into micro federal states. How about we use our imagination to get to the point where Lebanese are voting for Lebanese, instead of Muslims for Muslims…?

PA.

Kamal…wonderful generation of discussion. Very enlightening. I am AMAZED that Lebanese from all over the world are talking about how different we are in Lebanon! I thought that once people left and experienced REAL diversity, they would stop thinking like that, but obviously not…

I agree with Doha. All we need is establishing protection of personal freedoms.

CK

PA,

Wonderful imagination. I dare dream with you.

Please Kamal, before I argue more, I would like to see a more concrete plan of how to divide Lebanon along sectarian lines. Where do you divide? Which sects do you take into consideration? It is easy to mention an idea, but how will you carry it out? My knowledge of the war might be wrong, but didn’t members of the same sect fight each other?

The main problem of Lebanon isn’t the Christian - Muslim dilemna, but that of feudalism. We need a strong state (something that IS possible without going into federalism) in order to remove the power of the so called protector (aka zaim). It fascinates me to see loyalty by a whole group of people to ONE PERSON, and not necessarily to an ideal.

But onto more pertinent points: The USA works not ONLY because of federalism, but because of allegience to the government. We don’t have that yet. We may never have it. And allegience to a sect? If only things were as black as white as you make them seem . . .

CK, you are right “All we need is establishing protection of personal freedoms”. Protection of personal freedom is a luxury one can afford only once one’s existence as a society is not in stake. How about a federation for that?

PA and anonymous, may i join you and dream? Meanwhile, how about a federation?

*…With a rigid sectarian federalism, and under a kind of a 50/50 Christian/Muslim first amendment…*

Once institutionalize it will remain forever without wrenching upheaval.

Mic
I am as ewasperated as you with the “loyalty by a whole group of people to ONE PERSON, and not necessarily to an ideal”. This is a flaw we are doomed to have…
Because we are afraid of each other; because we are forced by our (il)legitilate fears of each other to have a “godfather-like protector”.
Excuse me if i repeat: “Ideals” are a luxury one can afford only once one’s existence as a society is not in stake.

“Once institutionalize it will remain forever without wrenching upheaval.”
That is the exact purpose of it!

When institutionalized, it will remain and we will AT LAST take it for granted, stop being afraid, and start building a STATE.

good to see carine is still alive, even if her blog isn’t… (i don’t actually have to add an “;)” in order to ensure this is perceived as humorous, do i?)

sectarian/communalist federalism doesn’t work in lebanon - there are, indeed, too many groups.

belgium has only two groups; switzerland has officially 4, but in reality only 2 matter; the u.s. (& canada, australia, etc.) is very different in the sense that it is per definitionem a “created” nation with a national identity based on being a citizen, not a religion, ethnicity, language, regional heritage, etc.

unless the “problem of the zu’ama” is tackled & overcome, every system - federal, consocional, etatist, whatever - is doomed to not deliver what the people want the most: decent wage for decent jobs, good housing, a good future for the children, a house/neighborhood/town/region/country that they can be proud of.

if you want lebanon to “work” - involve its denizens in it. give them a stake, so to speak. as long as lebanons inhabitants feel that the “state” is someone else, that the “other” does not concern them but might even be a “competitor”, that the environment is not part of their “home” - as long as that keeps being reality, well, there won’t be another civil war, but there will also not be any “lebanon”…

– what’s the “max amount of lines per comment” again?

Kamal,

This is perfect. I keep hearing of this paranoia and I never understood it. Maybe now you can kindly explain to me which society is at stake??

I think the only sect that MIGHT want to change laws dramatically is Hizballah - turn Lebanon into an islamic state and impose the sharia’a etc etc. Otherwise, I do not see how all the rest of us really differ in our image of Lebanon. This is simply a shallow struggle for power within and amongst sects. Once that power is attained, I do not think our “leaders” have different ideas for the country.
Considering the previous comments, I am assuming everyone will denounce me as an idealist, but I stick to my views. I am also the anon. dreamer, so it all fits.

CK

Kamal says that the way we raise our children has nothing to do with the discussion. I say it has everything to do with it.

Most of you who read this will most probably have children and the way you raise them might have the most influence on Lebanese society that you will ever be able to exert for change.

Kamal dismissed my comments as “neurotic” and “insane” instead of addressing them.

You can theorize as much as you want about the secterian mentality in Lebanon and how it is unchangeable. At the end of the day, the way you raise your kids might be the most impactful way you’ll ever get to really influence society. It will also show the kind of person you really are as opposed to the one you try to fake.

Ashraf said: if you want lebanon to “work” - involve its denizens in it. give them a stake, ..

Precisely, and decentralization is the way to involve people (and their leaders) in their schools/roads/electricity…See my earlier post(s) here.

Until we get there, people and their leaders will keep wasting 99% of their time musings about international politics, the other arabs, Palestine and other distracting (to say the least) issues.

BTW Hazem Sagieh (Spelling??) has a depressing piece in the Hayat today. Basically saying that the country has a zillion serious problem, and the Lebanese are focused on what sect got more or less in the new gvmt. (Gotta go no time for link, sorry).

“…how I will raise my kids: Exposing them to the various ideas and religions and letting them choose their way by themselves, as opposed to being mindless sheep following dogmas”

blah blah blah
blah blah blah

How cliché…
How useless..
How Hypocritical.

Hussein (the original),

I completely agree with you.

Hussein#2

I would learn my vocabulary before insulting people. A hypocrite is someone who preaches something but practices the opposite. Since we do not know how Hussein will raise his kids, we cannot call him that.

As for cliche’: I wish! If more Lebanese would preach the same, we would not be having this very lively (and depressing) discussion or worrying about how to accommodate the [insignificant] differences amongst sects or be forced to be ruled by sectarian warlords.

CK

Wouldn’t a non-religious state (Etat Laïque), with a fine tuned election law (like in every modern state on this planet) and some strict application of the laws as in any legally constituted state (Etat de Droit), solve it?

Why go as far as federalism when all we need is for the Lebanese people to vote to the ‘right’ person and not the ‘rich’ one or the ‘religious or fanatic’ one.

I think we only need to address feudalism and regilous fanatism in order solve our problems.

Who cares about the form of the state as long as it representative of its own people via a fair election law?
Lebanon is a place that you can cross from one side to the other in a two hour drive. France has departments, Germany lands, Switzerland cantons, and we have the mohafazat. I insist that all we need to solve the situation is some fine tuning of the laws that we already have, and some deep deep washing of the heads and the prejudice that we can’t live without.

You can change the state from a federation to a socio-democracy or even to an anarchy, but unless you wash all the dirt and the prejudice in people’s minds (which are shown in their votes), you cannot do anything to solve the situation. Maybe a decentralised state (look at France) is more than enough. We are not an unsolvable chinese puzzle. We are just corrupted in our minds.

Even if Lebanon is turned to a federal state, there will still be minorities. And people will still look at each other searching for a cross or a cressant or any sign to label the person. The solution is simpler than the one you are looking for, but it takes more than a law or a new form-of-state ‘parachutée’ to establish it.

Our daily bread is prejudice, voyeurisme and segregation. What can solve that?

i’m fed up with your armchair politics

thank you for supporting Hayyabina, i just found out about the banner, great blog and keep visiting.

Federation is the ONLY way. For mixed ared we’ll have a hybrid status but for area where there’s an overwhelming majority, we’ll have an autonomy from the standard state.

There will be no sharia or any prehistoric ideologies imposed on the christian people.In other words: Hezbollah can cut whatever it wants from robbers as long as it’s in the Bekaa.

The right for self determination is recognized by both the UN and Lebanon through the UN charters.

Liban Fédéral
Federation of Lebanon

doha,

The last decades proved that the current system does not work and
singapour and honk-kong are smaller than Kesrwan and these countries work fine.

Anti-federalism is just a disguised way of imposing stupid economic, cultural and religious policies on different communities which have little in common except that they live in the same place. I don’t know your religion but this is generally a typically muslim way of thinking. Maybe most muslims think that “Islam should rule” but the general failure of islamic countries in all domains makes it an unacceptable alternative for us. And don’t even think of telling me that this failure is due to a zionist plot.

The author is right in pointing out that christian “fanaticism” only wants to control the fate of its own community while muslim fanatics want to impose irrational and totalitarian system on everybody. There’s no way you can compare them, and christians will never accept anything less than a liberal democracy. So it will be negociated federalism or unilateral secession.

vox populi, all i can say is: there is no point discussing this with you. You have your distorted ideas, and no amount of reality well ever convince you otherwise. I guess we should all be saying - Long live the federation of Lebanon.

I am reading a lot of non-sense here. A guy wrote that it shouldn’t be a sectarian federation. Why the hell should we have a federation if it’s not divided accordingly to the communities?

And it’s not a sectarian based federation, it’s nation-based federation. In case you did not notice Lebanon is a multinational country with different sects being, in fact, different nations. Forget all the non-sense your parents told you about Arab-speaking people being a nation. You cannot have a nation without the consent of all groups that are supposed to be part of it and I GUARANTEE that if you do a referendum on the Christian community they will ask for a confederation. Nation is based on a common identity which we don’t have. Nation is not inevitably related to race (look at the USA, Brazil or Cuba: one nation, many races), to language (look at India: they use plenty of languages there) or religion (look at Germany, they have Catholics and Protestants). But nation is always related to identity and we don’t have this (you doubt about this? Let’s call for a referendum). It’s Islam who brought the ‘umma’ concept and merged identity and religion. It’s Islam who transformed other religious group into nations by giving them a lower but relatively autonomous status.

There are a lot of Muslims that are moderates and I think it’s great – we could develop a common identity with one of these days. But I feel that there are fewer of them every day: look at Islam 40 years ago and at Islam today. Do you feel that it’s evolving for the better? Do you think that it’s getting more moderate? My “fanaticism” does not want to rule Muslims, whether they are moderate or not. My “fanaticism” sole desire is that my children will not be treated like Copts are treated in Egypt. I may look like extreme but I am not blind and I see how religious minority are treated in other Islamic countries when they become too small to defend themselves. Call me fanatic if you want but there will be a federation in Lebanon.

CARICATURE

Vox populi is the most scary and caricaturesque example of what one can find in BOTH sects (secessionist christians and fascist-islamist muslims).

Those ugly caricatures grow like pathological bacteria on the Petri dish of the “Unified Lebanon” delusion.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/19/ManWithPetriDishes.jpg

Those caricatures are not to be discarded: Remember please guys, caricatures are only ridiculously exaggerated and overly stereotypical specimens of ALL OF US Lebanese of the year 2005… Sadly enough.

We can dream of changing, we can promise to grant a better education to our children… in 2025?…

…Until then… one day or another, we’ll have to move on: Some form of sectarian federalism, ie a democracy for all LEBANESE. The binational state of Lebanon where our respective nightmares will fade away.

———————————–
THE END
———————————–
kamal, guest writer @ beirutspring.com
———————————–

(The end? Your decision Mustapha.
And Many thanks again)

You are right we should say “long live to the federation”. I am not saying ‘partion’, I am not saying ‘dictatorship’. I am advocating a free and democratic federation (how extreme!).All divided countries (i.e. where multiple groups coexist) in the world are either federations either complete failure. And I am willing to hear your arguments against a federation - “it’s not worth discussing with you” is not enough. It’s a pathetic argument.

What is the current lebanese system?

1943-1975: 32 years of christian dominated governement and the muslims are not happy (understandable). A mini-war in 1958, big troubles in 69 and 73.

1975-1990: a civil war where more Kgs of explosives were used per inhabitant than during the Berlin siege.

1990-2005: let’s not even talk about that.

2005: we have a free government at last The governement is not perfect but acceptable. But nobody is completely happy about it and you can feel tensions less then one week after its apointment.

Don’t you think that there’s something wrong with the system?

Well Kamal, there is a basic difference between ‘fascist-islamist muslims’ (which is your expression, not mine) and ’secessionist christians’ (still your expression you are confusing between federation and patition): the ’secessionist christians’ that I am supposed to be does not want to rule other groups and it’s consistent with human rights, democracy and the right for self-determination.

Still, you are using a typical tactic: anathema. It’s the tactic of those who are wrong. Instead of explaining why I am wrong, you’re saying ‘look at him he’s a bad guy.

The problem with anathema is that it’s a bad defence and it’s hard to convince anybody with it. I am not trying to establish a fascist state that violates somebody’s rights (I am talking aboud a federation for God’s sake!).

Rendez-vous @ your blog

alright guys,

was a great conversation,
let’s move on, shall we?