|
Numerous
are the proposals and projects – solutions that have been proposed in
Lebanon in an attempt to build the state of Lebanon and bring to an end
its internal strife.
Antoine
Najem, one of Lebanon's foremost intellectuals and authorities on the
composition of Lebanon's society and who proposed a project – solution
(formula) along with a team of researchers are representative of a large
and wide section of Lebanese who considered that federalism is a logical
solution to the internal strife gripping Lebanon.
In
this article we will present briefly why federalism forms the basis of a
logical and achievable solution according to the opinion of Antoine Najem
and his fellow intellectuals. The necessity for such a solution or formula
has developed as a result of the historical, social and political
experiences in Lebanon.
As
a fundamental starting point Antoine Najem considers that an object,
rational and direct examination and understanding of the nature of
Lebanon's regime rather than an ideological comparison is necessary. Such
as process will best highlight the real nature of the political community
and hence, forms the basis for the essential and appropriate foundations
that will allow for the development of the Regime through its internal
dynamism and interaction
Antoine
Najem begins by focusing on the reality of the Lebanese experience and
examines the solutions or formulas adopted in the past and he regards
these formulas, beginning with the princedoms through the structural
formula of 1943 and including the Ottoman ERA 'Motasarafiyeh', as having
failed to eliminate the enduring internal problems because, in affect,
these formulas ignored these fundamental problems and the result of such
blunders were violent explosions leading to bloodbaths and wars and whose
consequences proved to be catastrophic, extinguishing the coexistence
between the various religious communities and wrecking Lebanon's single
and unified administration and its existence and composition. In fact one
of the basic deficiencies in the political solutions offered was disregard
for the distinct features and privileges of each of the communities within
Lebanon when each of these communities continues to insist on maintaining
and preserving their distinctive characteristics and privileges be their
ideological, political, institutional and administrative and this also in
light of the fact that each community also insisted on emphasising and
highlighting these features at every opportunity. Therefore, this
ideological superficial façade met with its ultimate destiny, crumbling
because it attempting to build a centralised system of government based
upon the myth that a unified single culture society exist in Lebanon.
Lebanon
today is faced with more than one possible alternative for solving its
internal problems:
1.
Partitioning which will see community seek independence from the other
in a separate political Regime and geographic existence.
2.
Or the return of the spirit of 1943 structural formula which means
returning to the original starting point of the problem and hence, a
repetition of the internal strife and violence.
3.
Or the creation of a Federal Regime, an option which the Lebanese have
not yet experimented with genuinely despite the fact that several
indictors within the real nature of Lebanon's society converge in that
direction.
With
these options before us and the repetition cycle of violence and failed
formulas and solutions indicted, it appears that federalism is the best
available option open to us considering that the other options include
partitioning , domination by one group over another and the perilous and
violence ridden centralised Regime.
Federalism,
even though it might not bring to a conclusion the problems associated
with the composition of the administration and the differences between
then religious communities, it does however address the urgent needs of
the existing problem. And this is basically a recogition officially and
institutionally of the presence of two Lebanese groups, each with their
unique and distinctive characteristics and values. This recognition must
also extend to allow these groups to freely organise and arrange their
presence and to develop it in an atmosphere free or devoid of external
interference. The fulfillment of such terms will contribute positively and
allow for the relaxation of the relationship between the religious
communities because it will remove from the network of this relationship
the factor of political tension and suspicious which is caused initially
by the possibility of one group having the opportunity to interfere and
intervene in the autonomous affairs of the other and visa versa. Also
removal will be the real danger or potential danger facing the existence
of all members of each community, be this danger genuine or mythical
that a community feels threatens it identity or it uniqueness.
On
the institutional front federalism presents a logical response to the
reality of the historical, social and ideological aspects of the religious
communities, thus ending the prevailing divide in Lebanon between society
and state.
Federalism
offers the better alternative and the more stable of the solution for the
establishment of ties and a workable equation between the religious
communities and the state. The existing relationship depends on relies
upon an ideological format racked by problems and conflict where each
religious community projects an impression of elitism and a superiority
complex over the other religious communities, and such a step up leads to
repeated cases of confrontation as well as to a format where domination
and assimilation are a concern and each community feels it is imperative
for it to defend itself against domination and or assimilation, hence, the
ensuring outcome is that the state becomes a stage for continuous
conflict.
In
relation to this area of concern, federalism reduces friction and the
level of confrontation relieving the state to a large extent from these
negative factors by eliminating a number of the elements that trigger
conflict and explosive situations within it and upon it.
Federalism
presents a logical redress to the 1943 formula beginning with the
identification of the attributes associated with the real nature of
society. In other words, federalism removes the contradictions existing
between the unifying 1943 National Accord and the Constitutional and
political Regime of the 1943 State, this by returning the political and
administrative institutions of their rightful place by taking into
consideration the real nature of society.
By
assuming such a line of thought additional experiences of suffering can be
avoided and appalling mistakes committed in the approaches adopted will
not be repeated. In fact, the experiences of the existing situation
present the strongest justification and the most important reason in the
search for a new or alternative political regime.
Then,
the problem associated with planning a new political regime is not one of
a technical rewriting of the Constitution as occurred with the Taif
Agreement and others of a similar nature. The problem is, however, related
to the autonomous existence of each of the Christian and Moslem
communities and their desire and will to establish a joint existence with
the other and to develop this existence mutually. From here then, a
successful political regime is one which is founded upon a will which
unites the citizens and upon institutions that will organise this
existence without denying the religious communities their autonomous
existence.
And
in regards to the factors that justify and assist in the creation of a
federal regime in Lebanon, Antoine Najem considers that the implementation
of federalism in Lebanon is conditional upon the availability of some
essential factors that justify the establishment of a federal system and
assist in its formation.
There
is firstly the dual composition of the Lebanese Society i.e the presence
of two groups unique and distinctive in their identities, cultures,
history, regimes and customs.
There
is also the matter of each group populating various geographic locations
or enclaves which are limited in number, and to a certain extent, the
similarity between the identity of the population in each geographic
pocket and the identity of the land is exact.
There
also exists common interests and unbending and non-compromisable
convictions between the two groups and these form the essential foundation
and pre-condition for establishing the state and political regime.
The
most important of these interests – convictions: the unanimous desire of
the groups to establish the state especially in regards to t he mutual
interests they hold in the relationship of coexistence and their agreement
upon the notion of organising this existence politically as well as the
agreement by both groups to acknowledge the platform of privileges,
equality and freedom and its relevance to each group.
There
are specific factors , undoubtedly, that must be sufficiently present on
the organisational front such as founding principles which are considered
vital in order for this Regime to be realised and the most important are:
1.
The principle of sovereign autonomy for each group i.e each group must
have the authority to independently self-determine its own affairs
through a self governing body that organises its own authorities and
allocates responsibilities and oversees the administration of its group
or community.
2.
The principle of the structured sovereignty of the State i.e each group
has the benefit of an authority that exercises sovereignty when dealing
with a political decision of the federal State, and if this decision is
opposed by the group then it can not be implemented and likewise for a
decision to be implemented, the participation of the group in the
decision making is absolutely essential as a condition for the decision
to be carried.
3.
Duplication of the infrastructures of the institutions of the State
including the regional, the legislative, executive, judicial and federal
infrastructure.
4.
The structured infrastructure of the federal institutions is a
reflection of the principle of structured sovereignty where the group or
community is represented by regarding it as a single political entity
within the legislative, executive and federal institution.
5.
A geographic division on the basis of areas dominated or inhabitant
predominantly by a particular religious group, the organisational of the
regional authorities is achieved according to the geographic basis of
these areas.
The
federal regime must take into considerations most of the factors and
conditions. Essential for the founding of federal system from around the
world with special attention to be paid to some of the unique and
distinctive characteristic of the Lebanese reality.
Of
these distinctive and unique characteristics, the concerns of the
Religious Community and its needs in relation to the issues of existence,
culture, education, self-identify, personal status, financial needs,
growth and development. These are concerns that quite often prevail over
the demands required for co-existence and extent beyond the boundaries of
the political regime. Also of concern the geographic mingling between the
religious communities within a number of areas in Lebanon which resulted
originally from Christian migration to all parts of Lebanon their
settlements in those geographic locations and subsequent mixing with the
Moslem- Sunnis, Shittes, drupe-populations, the consequences of such
migration and intermingling are difficulties and challenges associated
with dividing the land geographically according to concentrations of
particular communities and organizing the institutions and guarantees that
protect the right of the individual and group.
And
on the obstacles that obstruct the founding of a federal regime in
Lebanon, Antoine Najem says:
The
federal regime in Lebanon, from an objective point of view, is the better
of the systems available and provides a solution to the existing
confrontationalist reality, however, implementing this regime will be
resisted by obstacles and faces stifling opposition. It is possible to
draw the boundaries of these difficulties and challenges in the following
manner:
1-
The absence of a unanimous endorsement of this form of regime i.e. those
Christians in favor of the 1943 structural formula are still bargaining
on the traditional understanding of co-existence and its constitutional
and political in terpretation within a single unified centralized state.
The taif accord was translated into constitutional changes and endorsed
officially by the President of the republic on 21 September 1990. And
with the Islamic community, the focus of their ideology is based upon
the concept of the single nature of Lebanese society. This concept is
expressed politically by the concept of the centralized state that is
built upon the notion of the single nature of the land, the people, and
the institutions. For this reason they view the proposal of the federal
regime as being a proposal for the partitioning and dismemberment of
society and state in Lebanon. Arab thought in general is wary of and
does not encourage the acceptance of thelogic of pluralism, which, in
essence, will obliterate the accepted notion of a single natured and
nationalistic Arab society from its very roots. As a result of this
logic Arabs continue to confront the problem of assimilating minorities
within by resorting to military means as an accepted method for
resolving these issues or matters.
2-
The current and continuous disputes existing within inter-community
relationships with a rose from deeply rooted conflict around three
fundamental matters of contention and these actually form the basis of
the matters of common interest and would fall under the jurisdiction of
the federal authorities, and it is such matters that require they be
solved by all religious communities participating in the regime through
a unanimous agreement.
The
' identity ' of Lebanon still provides the central point of contention and
dispute, despite the fact that in accordance with the taif accord, the
constitution was altered to incorporate the view that Lebanon is Arab in
both its membership and identify. This matter is centered around a
fundamental subject: Will Lebanon follow the direction desired by the
Moslems and become a permanent and inseparable member of the Arab world or
will Lebanon retain a special and unique existence that is distinctive
from its surrounds as how the Christians would like to see Lebanon?
Branching from this dispute are other disputes, several in number and also
very basic.
The
subject of Lebanon's foreign relationships and ties is linked
fundamentally to the problem of determining its identity. This subject
assumes a specially contentious issue because of the presence of Israel in
a land considered by the Islamic Arabs world as being Arab and Islamic
land and, because this presence also places upon Lebanon the burden of
assuming a direct and clear stance on the issue. The Lebanese themselves
are divided over the issue of hostility and opposition to the Israeli
existence and or whether a truce with Israel should be considered or even
if relations with Israel should be established. Another problem issue is
centered around defining the type of relationship to be established
between the Lebanese state and the Islamic Arabs world. The Moslems of
Lebanon are pushing for substantial and unrestricted ties, which will
gradually lead to Lebanon being absorbed into a constitutionally
comprehensive single unified Arab entity. The Christians, however, are
cautious of committing to such a relationship, which goes beyond
establishing normal relations with other states on the basis of
sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as stated in the Arab league
accord.
Disagreement
also exists over the issue of national defense from the point of view of
determining defense policies and deciding upon the fighting doctrine of
the army. Before deciding upon or determining the guidelines of such an
issue the matter of Lebanon's foreign relations must be settled especially
the relations with the neighborly regional powers. But it appears that
this matter is far from being settled in the near future at least,
especially in the shadow of the existing internal division, and regional
tensions and confrontation on Lebanese Territory.
3-
One must recognize the connection or link between the internal situation
in Lebanon and the regional and international political developments and
the effects of this connection upon this internal situation in terms of
stability or fragility in relations to the balance of power, or the
effects of this link on either entrenching and expanding the conflicts and
disputes or promoting the search for constitutional solutions formulas and
structures. This connection (with the outside) of today has been a common
factor ever since the rule of prince Bashir 2, at least.
This
regional tension reflected upon the internal situation in Lebanon and
impacted negatively and, hence, all attempts at working out political and
constitutional solutions failed abysmally in Lebanon beginning with the
proposed constitutional document drafted in 1976 to the taif accord in
1989 including all the proposals and projects that promised solutions
between these two dates.
All
these matters confirm to us that in order for any political regime to
succeed in Lebanon-whatever form it takes-two factors need to be available
or accessible. The first factor necessary is one of an internal nature
communities, one which is frank, direct, clear and free in an in an
atmosphere devoid of any pressure and intimidation and the second factor,
foreign, is conditional upon limiting the reflection of the effects of
foreign conflicts upon Lebanon and limiting foreign intervention and its
effects upon the balance of power domestically and in fact, prevent its
influence altogether upon the domestic situation if possible.
Federalism,
as we have observed, can fulfil this task and can to a large extent,
contributes to solving the internal facet of strife and conflict between
the religious communities. Awaiting a satisfactory solution is the
external aspects i.e. the limiting or restricting of foreign intervention
in Lebanon's internal affairs. In this field of concern, the possibility
of isolating the external factor and eliminating its effect upon the
interior is far from achievable at this point of time especially in the
shadow of the current foreign political circumstances and the approaches
adopted by this foreign factor. The reason for the existence of this
influencing and interfering foreign factor is Lebanon's common borders
with Israel and Syria and their claims to ritual interest including
strategize and political extensions to their concerns in the Lebanese
interior, and the effective involvement of both these states in the
international political scene. Also another influencing reason is the
state of strife and conflict between the Lebanese religious communities,
which places at the forefront of importance in the relationship between
these communities the factor of military and political force. These
religious communities consider that their alliances with external forces
form the basis of very important element in determining the extent and
influence of this force (military and political), and its effectiveness.
This fact invites foreign interference and renders it vital to the
interest of the religious communities who readily this request this
intervention on their behalf in their internal conflicts.
For
this reason the absolute necessity for a regional international agreement
arises. This will guarantee Lebanon's independence and internationally
recognized borders as well as its internal framework in all its human
elements through a Federal Regime. Lebanon must be allowed to assume a
permanent Internationally neutral role. This neutrality, however, must be
initially accepted internally.
Neutrality
will effectually disengage Lebanon from the existing circle of
strategically influenced hostilities and conflicts in the Middle East.
This increases the hope of establishing a stable regime based upon a
stabilized balance of power and the basis of such a concept is dependent
upon the various factions accepting the fact they cannot or are incapable
of destabilizing and subverting such a regime, hence, they will be spared
the ramifications of the negative political impact upon any faction that
may consider moving in this direction.
It
is true that neutrality will not eliminate the spirit of disagreement and
conflict present between the Lebanese factions, however it will reduce the
visible effects of this predicament to a minimum and such disputes will be
restricted to the political and the ideological level within the bounds of
the media. This will allow for an extended and lengthy cessation to the
successive rounds of violence dogging Lebanon.
An
internationally neutral Lebanon does not necessarily mean that the
Lebanese religious communities have to abandon their basis conviction and
beliefs, and their political ideologies. In fact neutrality is only
intended to compel communities into forsaking any intentions they have of
imposing their convictions and beliefs upon the other, and to render them
incapable of carrying out such intentions.
So,
the federal regime and neutrality are two convergent faces and in union
provide the formula and the solution to the Lebanese problem. But, the
appropriate internal as well as external circumstances are essential for
the success of any formula. A federal regime reduces friction between the
religious communities at the constitutional level will, however, remain
without the required and desired results unless it is accompanied by
measures to prevent these frictions on the ground in real life situation.
These preventative measures have an internal psychological facet
represented by the need for all the factions to be convinced that in the
event of violent confrontation they will not be able to gain any advantage
politically or otherwise, if indeed they attempt to take advantage of a
negative situation. The same psychological implications are mirrored upon
the external front where foreign forces or elements refrain from promoting
internal conflict, i.e. cease investing their resources for the purpose of
instigating and maintaining internal divisions that only serve their
purposes, and to stop utilizing these resources for increasing the
capabilities of the internal factions and giving them false hopes which
only encourages them to depart from the balance existing between them.
Finally,
such a document requires a careful and concentrated examination. An
objective approach is compulsory not a subjective one based upon past
judgements and mythical ideological attitudes. Antoine Najem sums up the
feeling of those who promote this document in his statement: " we are
federalists because we believe in freedom with all its ramifications and
significance.
Because
we support a system which identifies with the truest form of democracy and
its features and demands development and growth, equality, justice,
co-existence in a pluralist and diverse society. Only because we value
humanity."
|
