
The Lebanese would be quite surprised to learn that the American system is based on compromise, not on majority rule as we might think. A piece contributed to the Beirut Spring by fellow blogger Abou Hatem, looks at how the work of one author of the American constitution can help the Lebanese find a balance between democracy and that increasingly irritating concept we call compromise.

The art of compromise…
When looking at the lack of compromise in Lebanon’s current political gridlock, I, as an Arab American remembered the words of James Madison.
Madison was the primary author of the American constitution, and most of its greatest commentary - The Federalist Papers . Madison was central in creating the modern Democratic policy making process in the United States of “checks and balances,” - one which was based in competing elites with competing interests, representing the people, arriving at compromise and conciliation in their creation of policy.
Such a system is the oldest continuous Democratic system in the world. It is the product of this very system, compromise, which is the essence of American democracy. The founders of our Republic did not intend for Democracy to be “majority rule,” but in fact worked hard to protect the axial foundation of Democracy - minority rights.
In the Federalist #10, Madison worked hard to convince Americans that this system in which competing interests and branches of government, as well as federalist division between state and local government, would result in policies of compromise which would satisfy the people. He worked hard to convince Americans of the flaws of majority tyranny, and of “mob-rule,” in which compromise simply would not work.Madison wrote:
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
I urge you all to read the remainder of the Federalist #10.
Political compromise is the foundation of a Democratic system. It is only through compromise that a system is truly democratic and survives. The elites, the policy makers who represent us, fail us when they are unable to reach a compromise based in the relative strengths of each group.
Obviously, compromise is impossible for every possible opinion, and the weakest and least supported opinions will have less political leverage and thus often not be included. Yet, significant minorities using their political leverage to reach some sort of compromise with the majority is the essence of Democratic policy. Compromise means that everyone will not get everything to go his way, but that different people will have to give up different things for the sake of the public good. It is the job of our elected officials to create policy which reflects the will of the people conditioned upon the common public good.
We often hear Lebanese on both sides today lamenting compromise . Compromise they say causes nothing to be done, or leads to a do-nothing President. Yet the fact remains that the parliament reflects the will of the people - the very divided people of Lebanon. Whether March 14th, or March 8th, the only way Lebanon can progress ahead of the Arab world is to lead the pack in achieving compromise. No-holds-bars warfare, fighting, and clashes all seeking the will to power have characterized the entire Middle East, including Lebanon, for too many years now. Instead of the difficult act of compromise, we find it all to easy to use our strength and resources to destroy opposition. Yet, humans are diverse and people are different. The quest to dehumanize and destroy “the other,” in hope for Utopia, or ideology, or sect, has done nothing but bring hell to the people of Lebanon and the people of the Middle East.
If Lebanon truly desires Democracy. If March 14th and March 8th truly desire peace and prosperity, freedom and diversity, tolerance and acceptance, then they must leave this sectarian and partisan will to absolute power. People of Lebanon, follow in the steps of the people of the free world. If you truly want peace and freedom, then come to the realization of compromise . Destroy the plague of sectarian hate, of class-war hate, of political hate and replace it with peaceful celebration of sectarian diversity, of class diversity, and of political diversity. Solve your problems using rule of law, through peaceful compromise.
We must come to the realization that losing some political battles is a lesser evil than losing freedom to civil wars which never end. For, the acceptance of political loss is itself a victory, a victory for Democracy and a victory for peace. In the words of Madison, on the dangers of a government without institutions requiring compromise:
When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.
Hello, my name is Mustapha and I blog in The Beirut Spring about Lebanese society and politics. I started in February 2005 after the killing of P.M. Rafik Hariri.

yawn..
“For, the acceptance of political loss is itself a victory, a victory for Democracy and a victory for peace.”
Great article Mus and Abou Hatem.
Thank you guys
Great piece. Though sadly it would be hard to apply in Lebanon given that one zealous side, armed and brainwashed with some backward theology, unwilling to rationally and reasonably settle for anything less than total control.
This phrase is key : “Obviously, compromise is impossible for every possible opinion, and the weakest and least supported opinions will have less political leverage and thus often not be included.”
The author forgot to mention that opinions which threaten the very existence and the very nature of the country are never included in any sort of compromises.
This is the state we are in Lebanon. It’s either the celebration of death, armageddon and perpetual war, or the prospects of democracy and economic development with all its flaws.
The majority in Lebanon are for the second choice, including the confused Aounists.
The Lebs should read many things Steve.
I am afraid it’s their understanding that is, and has been, lacking.
1. The compromise is the Congress. When the Senate and te House pass 2 almost similar Bills, they confer (get into a conference) to finalize the bills by compromising! But the President in the While House has a veto power and can sign it (it becomes a law) or veto it (send it back to the Congress!) Here there is no compromise!!
2. You are right Jay, we have in Lebanon people who just follow their z3eem regardless if he is right or wrong! The people don’t know even where they stand on issues!
Actually, the whole thing about the President vetoing a bill, as well as state and local governments passing contradicting legislation to the Congress is all about compromise. The Madisonian system was made to give every significant minority, as well as every branch of government, significant leverage to stifle legislation. If a Congress has less than a 2/3rds majority they will have to change a bill before passing it to compromise with a co-equal branch (case-in-point: SCHIP). Then there are the courts making policy from the bench (judicial review) but only in reacting to the Constitutionality of a policy - which often leads Congress and the President to adjusting policy attempting a compromise.
Also, this applies in the federal government versus the states. Look up the concept of “antagonistic federalism,” concerning when the federal government has to compromise with states in terms of policy.
It is very interesting to see how the whole process works out…
Dare I suggest that the premise of your argument does not hold in this case. Compromise is a honorable tradition, actually politics has often been defined as the “art of compromise”. Compromise, however, is not to be confused with appeasement which is what is being asked of the Lebanese to do. That must be rejected at any cost.
Ghassan,
Glad you’re no longer “discriminated against” ;)
adding to GK, the Madison system, assumes that all sides have, at least, some degree of good will and not our usual, time honored, style of “my way or the highway”.
Also, I really don’t see the americans “compromising” on say… the ranchers in Texas got lock and loaded and start a war against the “Mexican Entity”
[...] A guest piece for TheBeirutSpring Blog. [...]
Realpolitik:
Name a sovereign state without borders. Read Mexican laws related to immigrants, then read existing related American laws. Consider this: In a sovereign state rich in natural resources about 10% of the 140,000,000 Mexican population remains illiterate, can’t read. Altogether, there are many serious failures of the Mexican government. One side of that border has been a democracy for more than 225 years; the other side of the border had a long series of dictatorial regimes and even as a democracy Mexico remains riddled with corruption. The population flow is from south to north and in recent years literally ten or more millions of illegal entries have crossed that border without any immigrant documentation. In fact, these are violating our laws and sovereignty; the Mexican government actually encourages those activities all the while placing the burdens of education, health, and welfare of their citizens on our citizens. Yet, lock them up and load illegal immigrants on return transportation, as well as fining the illegal immigrants and other governments for those transgressions, are the policies of the Mexican government. What fees shall we assess for millions of their illegal immigrants?
Get real.