Lebanon not ready for radical reform

December 15, 2009

Palm Beach Gardens:

In attempting to reform their state, the Lebanese fear the unraveling of their nation.

President Obama was well briefed on Lebanon’s fragile “national unity” government when he received the Lebanese President Michel Suleiman on December 14. In private, the US president demanded from Suleiman that he control Hizbulla’s growing military power. Suleiman, as advised in advance, raised the issue of Israel’s threats to Beirut’s sovereignty in response. Both sides agreed to ignore the negative. Obama is getting better and better at ignoring the elephant in the room. Remember? In dealing with Prime Minister Netanyahu, Obama smoothly shelved the unpleasant: Israel’s settlers in the Occupied Territories.

Washington is learning. Obama is aware that Hizbulla’s unruliness in Lebanon is a symptom of the sectarian power structure of the country. Hizbulla is both a Resistance movement and a Shiite political party. Hizbulla , like Hamas, is also a product of a festering peace process.

Lebanon is a nation of contradictions. It is ironically the most secular and the most sectarian country in the region. The Lebanese are socially integrated and politically segregated. Lebanese communities mix in daily living, but political power is shared according to sectarian, demographic formulas.

Christians and Muslims in Lebanon attend the same schools; they do business and leisure together without much thinking of social background; they live in mixed residential neighborhoods. Lebanon demonstrates that human contact reduces prejudice.

On the other hand, the Lebanese vote, organize power and manage conflict in predictable sectarian patterns. Political systems that conceive society as categories of religious communities create, reinforce and deepen sectarianism in voting, running for office, forming parties and engaging in public service.

If the Lebanese citizenry is to be fully integrated, electoral, personal and family laws have to change. It is the law that rationalizes prejudice and institutionalizes discrimination.

The Lebanese have worked hard to rebuild their country after the fifteen-year sectarian civil war that ended in 1990. Not surprisingly, the current system has its advocates; proponents of the status quo see it as a pragmatic solution, a compromise between Western democracy and widespread Arab autocracy. But the system has to change; demography changes and undermines the equilibrium of power sharing.

"Change" is easier said than done. There is no public trust that under a secular electoral system people would vote for the best qualified politicians and ignore leaders of their own sect. There is no agreement on the role of the Lebanese Diaspora in nation building. Determining who should vote in future national elections could turn into a sectarian “fight”. Finally, secularizing implies loss of privilege to the religious establishment. The clergy wield immense political power; they profit from regulating daily life in education, politics, marriage, death and inheritance.

Nonetheless, the Lebanese could now take preparatory measures to soften attitudes regarding diversity.

§ Lebanon could rotate top leadership positions among the main confessional groups for a fixed period, say a decade or two. This measure would equate the political status of communities and allow for reconciliation and frank exchange about past inequality.

§ Emigrants with Lebanese passports could vote and participate in the rebuilding and reform. When emigrants were allowed to vote, minority and emigrant communities would regain confidence in Lebanon as being a society that values all citizens.

§ The school curriculum could offer national civic education and encourage respect for tolerance. In Lebanon, private schools generally offer better education than public facilities, but intensive privatization in education has side effects; some special schools impart conservative religious education and promote a biased understanding of national history. Public education could be an equalizer; its facilities and curriculum could be improved. Civic education should be uniform across the country.

§ Inter-religious and civil marriage could be accepted. Current Lebanese law recognizes civil marriages only if they are initially registered outside the country, and religious laws are prohibitive in peculiar ways. A Muslim woman cannot marry a Christian man; but a Muslim man can marry a Christian women. Chrstian men and women are prohibited from wedding Muslims. If mixed marriage were legalized as an “ecumenical" or civil union, the country would have a sea change in interfaith attitudes. Since personal and family statutes are based on interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, this aspect of legislation would be hard to change, but elements of it might be introduced incrementally.

It would take perhaps a full generation to change attitudes and systems before the politics of secular voting could be introduced. Regrettably, the Lebanese are not yet mentally ready for a radical departure from their sectarian status quo.