Arguably, one can state, that Lebanon is another example of why some peoples cannot take Democracy at all. I just hope this is not the case.

There are two major problems with Lebanon’s system. First “confessionalism.” John Burgess, the founder of political science as a discipline in the West, is known to have said that the state cannot function without some type of a homogeneous national entity. Without Lebanese thinking of themselves as Lebanese, instead of as different sects and parties, it will always be hardball.

Secondly, the Presidential elections should have a new system. Duh. Making the election a game between the members of parliament is ridiculous. Yes, republics are supposed to have representatives who have good judgment use their intellects to find a good compromise solution for their people. However, thats not how its working out in Lebanon.

The Lebanese should think of having a Presidential system like France, where 3-4 candidates run and are directly voted on by the people, then having a run-off election between the top two. Or like the United States.

The Lebanese can’t have a “fusion of powers,” system like the UK and Germany, for instance, in which the legislature and the executive are controlled by the victor who gets to pass all the laws. They are too divided for this. It won’t work. Lebanese have to have a separation of powers system based on popular votes and checks and balances – just because of their sheer immense disagreement. The constitution is a pretty smart document, but its outdated, and it doesn’t work anymore.

This is very true. And it’s the reason why Lebanese shouldn’t focus on Belgium so much.

Belgium was originally meant to be a French speaking country, although the majority of the people is Dutch speaking. Over the years, the Dutch speaking majority gained more and more influence. The French speaking establishment feared that they would lose their power. That’s the reason why Belgium became a federal country with an equal number of French and Dutch speaking ministers in the federal government (but without a representation for the German speaking Belgians in the government) and with all kinds of procedures to protect the interests of the French speaking minority. By it’s very nature this is an undemocratic system, because the minority can veto decisions made by the majority.

This situation leads to more and more frustration. The Flemings (Dutch speaking Belgians) no longer accept that the French speaking politicians block the economical reforms that Flanders needs. That’s why I don’t think Belgium will survive much longer. The French speaking community doesn’t want to be ruled by Flanders and Flanders doesn’t want to rule the French speaking community. The only thing the Flemings ask, is being able to make their own decisions. I think that within 20 years they will have achieved that goal by establishing an independent Flemish state.

I think Switzerland is a much better example. Switzerland is probably one of the most democratic countries in the world. A county where any citizen can ask for a referendum on any subject (if he collects enough signatures) and where the government has to accept the decisions made by the people in such a referendum. Switzerland has 3 big language communities (and a small Romansh speaking community), but it has 26 cantons. That’s a much healthier situation than the Belgian situation with 2 large regions (and a small one: Brussels, that is claimed by both communities.)

I don’t know Lebanon and Switzerland well enough to know if the Swiss system might work in Lebanon. But as a Belgian, I don’t believe the Belgian system can be a long-term solution for Lebanon.

Now they dont want to change the constitution or taef deals we will have increasing tensions among the sects as we are in a secterian system.

As long we wont remove the secterian system from our political system we are going to face tensions and the risk of the war.

We can improve the system through the abolition of secterism for ex in the parlement easely by making a unique circonscription by deputy which would be elected without the religious parameter but because of his attachment to the local population. It would allow the emergence of new local leaders and new leaders on a state scale.
One framework would be to go back to the electoral law preexisting before 1958, and that was abolished by … omar karamé, Kamal joumblatt, edde, pierre gemayel.

Personally, I don’t advocate a consensual democracy in its most absolute sense. I do not believe it can exist perfectly, and I think it leads to indecision.

The other point I want to stress is that Switzerland and Belgium are both politically neutral countries. In other words, their foreign policy is neutral. Both countries have a multi-ethnic and linguistic mix. Similar to Lebanon. Which is why they are neutral. And which is why they have adopted a consensual system that will protect all the factions rights. The only way they can preserve their pluralistic make-up and maintain a relative consensual democracy in the country is to be neutral.

Basically what I’m saying is that NEUTRALITY and CONSENSUAL DEMOCRACY are complementary. Also, the consensus is based on preserving the pluralistic make-up of the country.

The problem in Lebanon is that we refuse to accept the reality of the country’s identity which has led us to pursue the aspirations of minorities throughout history. In addition, we believe that we are a Consensual Democracy in the most absolute sense of the term. You cannot advocate the political, religious and ideological views of a one group and expect there to be a consensus.

Neutrality and consensus based on our nature. Only then can we focus on our civil society issues, economy, education etc.

But that seems ages away!

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

P.S. Thanks for the post Mustapha.

The opinions expressed in this piece do not necessarily represent the Beirut Spring’s point of view