Tweet
THE OXYMORONIC LEBANESE DEMOCRACY
Dr. Joseph Hitti
American Chronicle, CA
Nov 29 2007
The word "democracy" comes from the Greek and means "Government by
the people": "Demos" for people, and "Kratia" for government. In
the current stalemate in Lebanon over the presidential election,
the inability of elected representatives to vote on a candidate
for President highlights the inherent conflicts built into the
Lebanese political system. Some call it consensual or consociational
democracy. I call it Oxymoronic Democracy because consensual democracy
just isn't democracy, and the fact is that it has never worked. The
idea behind consensual democracy is that a hodge-podge of elected
(usually lay) and unelected (usually religious) leaders meet when
they feel like it and, depending on their own interests - and not
necessarily those of the people - make decisions on behalf of the
people, thus subverting the institution of Parliament where only
elected representatives ought to legislate, vote and make decisions.
The very principle of the anonymity of the popular source of power
that is inherent in elected representation is just breached, and the
decisions made "consensually" by community leaders are not reflective
of the will of the people.
I happen to agree with Michel Aoun on the issue that he, the elected
majority representative of the Christian community of Lebanon, and
not the unelected Patriarch of the Maronite Church, Cardinal Nasrallah
Boutros Sfeir, is the ultimate political decision-maker on behalf of
that community. Many are crying foul over Aoun's position, but I find
it consistent with the idea, ideals and practices of democracy. Would
anyone in the Western world accept that laws be passed, and senior
government officials (judges, cabinet members, and Presidents)
be appointed and confirmed by bishops and other senior Catholic
and Protestant clergymen, grand Jewish rabbis, Moslem Sheikhs and
leaders of the other religious communities, after consultation with
congressmen and senators?
Granted that Aoun sees no problem that his allies in Hezbollah rely
on their unelected clergyman, Hassan Nasrallah, to lead and overrule
the elected representatives of the Shiite community. But Aoun can
argue that he cannot impose on the other communities what he believes
should apply to his community. He can merely act according to the
principle and thus set an example for others to follow. In fact,
Patriarch Sfeir himself, as the enlightened religious leader that he
is, has declared repeatedly that he does not want to make political
decisions nor does he want to be put in the position of taking sides
between political parties within his community, even if many claim
to seek the Patriarch's benediction and are barking high and low to
denounce Aoun for saying what the Patriarch himself has been saying.
In fact, during last week's presidential election charade, the
Patriarch held out for a very long time against pressure to name
"his" candidate and demanded that due process, as stipulated by
the constitution, be adhered to regardless of who gets elected. In
other words, the leader of the Church himself was asking the civilian
political leadership to leave him and the Church alone and out of their
wranglings. It was only under intense pressure and in the sincere hope
of breaking the logjam that he volunteered a very long list of names,
from which Parliament and the politicians were supposed to choose
candidates for elections. With the failure of the latter to act as
promised, Patriarch Sfeir was reported to be very angry because he
was duped by those same people who are crying foul today against Aoun
for agreeing with the Patriarch.
It remains that if the Moslems in Lebanon want to continue using
archaic and backward mechanisms to have unelected clergymen
represent them, that's their business. But the "Christians" of
Lebanon, as traditionalist Maronite leaders Amin Gemayel and Samir
Geagea and such like to remind us, claim to be more "advanced" and
"more democratic" than their Moslem compatriots. In fact, the very
foundation of Gemayel's and Geagea's political platform rests on
a decentralization of the Lebanese communities which then become
semi-autonomous within a federated State of Lebanon. Something like
the Swiss cantons. Such a "separation" from the Moslems, Geagea and
Gemayel argue, would allow the Christians to practice their "more
advanced" form of government without hindrance from the "backward"
Moslems who always want to inject Islamic Sharia law into daily life.
But if the current elected Christian leadership surrenders the
authority given to them by the people to the unelected head of the
Church every time they fail to make a decision - as happened during
the presidential election fiasco last week - then what's the point of
separating from the Moslems? What is the point of claiming to want to
practice a more advanced form of democracy if they turn around and act
exactly like the Moslems? What's the point of holding, running for,
and voting in elections? Do we really believe in democracy, in which
power rests uniquely with the people, and the people periodically
changes its leadership through elections? Is there really a belief in
the separation of Church and State within the Christian community? Or
is the Christian community in Lebanon as backward as the Moslems in
referring to religious leadership instead of the people when change
is needed or in times of crisis?
Lebanese democracy as it stands today is the prototype of the failure
of this oxymoronic democracy. Between the 1920s and the 1940s,
when the modern State of Lebanon was being shaped, after it enjoyed
autonomous status between 1860 and 1914 within the Ottoman Empire,
Ottoman rule legacy dictated that religious leaders take the reins
of their communities or "millets" as they were known to the Ottoman
State. Having laid the foundation for a modern State equipped with
institutions, this early form of Lebanese democracy turned out to
be a federation of millets, whereby the State was constituted by the
religious communities more so than by the Lebanese people themselves.
This would be similar to the United States having only a Senate
(representing the States) and no House of Representatives
(representing the people). The religious communities then in turn
claimed to represent the individual citizens. This parochial form of
representation kept real power in the hands of the bosses (Zuama) who
allied themselves with the Church (for the Christians) or the Mosque
(for the Moslems). An individual Maronite or Shiite Lebanese is at the
complete mercy of his Church or Mosque and the civilian bosses they
blessed. By the same token, no one in Lebanon can be recognized as
a citizen if he or she is a declared atheist or agnostic or a member
of a religion other than the 18 religions recognized by the Lebanese
constitution. In Lebanon, you will have no existence if you are a Hindu
or Buddhist. Also, one is born a Maronite or a Shiite or a Druze or
Armenian Orthodox first, then and only then is one a Lebanese citizen.
Time has come for Lebanese democracy to evolve and be more in tune with
modern times. This can be done in one of two ways. The first would
be to amend the political system to allow for direct representation
without the intercession of the religious communities, which would
require the State to handle civil status affairs (marriage, divorce,
inheritance, etc.) that are handled by the churches and mosques
today, candidates would run in elections on some other basis than
their religious affiliation, and all Lebanese citizens, regardless of
religion or lack thereof, have thus a place in the system. The second
way would be to institute a bicameral form of Parliament in which a
Senate is created representing the religious communities on an equal
footing (say 2 senators per community), leaving Parliament to represent
the people directly regardless of religious affiliation. This is the
case with such countries as the US (Senate represents the states,
the House of Representatives represents the people) or France (Senate
represents the departments, while the National Assembly represents
the people) or the UK (House of Lords represents the nobility and
the Church, while the House of Commons represents the people), and
many other countries.
Joseph Hitti is an ATA-certified Arabic translator, a former genomics
scientist and the President of Boston-based New England Americans
for Lebanon. He was born and raised in Beirut, Lebanon and currently
lives in Boston.
Dr. Joseph Hitti
American Chronicle, CA
Nov 29 2007
The word "democracy" comes from the Greek and means "Government by
the people": "Demos" for people, and "Kratia" for government. In
the current stalemate in Lebanon over the presidential election,
the inability of elected representatives to vote on a candidate
for President highlights the inherent conflicts built into the
Lebanese political system. Some call it consensual or consociational
democracy. I call it Oxymoronic Democracy because consensual democracy
just isn't democracy, and the fact is that it has never worked. The
idea behind consensual democracy is that a hodge-podge of elected
(usually lay) and unelected (usually religious) leaders meet when
they feel like it and, depending on their own interests - and not
necessarily those of the people - make decisions on behalf of the
people, thus subverting the institution of Parliament where only
elected representatives ought to legislate, vote and make decisions.
The very principle of the anonymity of the popular source of power
that is inherent in elected representation is just breached, and the
decisions made "consensually" by community leaders are not reflective
of the will of the people.
I happen to agree with Michel Aoun on the issue that he, the elected
majority representative of the Christian community of Lebanon, and
not the unelected Patriarch of the Maronite Church, Cardinal Nasrallah
Boutros Sfeir, is the ultimate political decision-maker on behalf of
that community. Many are crying foul over Aoun's position, but I find
it consistent with the idea, ideals and practices of democracy. Would
anyone in the Western world accept that laws be passed, and senior
government officials (judges, cabinet members, and Presidents)
be appointed and confirmed by bishops and other senior Catholic
and Protestant clergymen, grand Jewish rabbis, Moslem Sheikhs and
leaders of the other religious communities, after consultation with
congressmen and senators?
Granted that Aoun sees no problem that his allies in Hezbollah rely
on their unelected clergyman, Hassan Nasrallah, to lead and overrule
the elected representatives of the Shiite community. But Aoun can
argue that he cannot impose on the other communities what he believes
should apply to his community. He can merely act according to the
principle and thus set an example for others to follow. In fact,
Patriarch Sfeir himself, as the enlightened religious leader that he
is, has declared repeatedly that he does not want to make political
decisions nor does he want to be put in the position of taking sides
between political parties within his community, even if many claim
to seek the Patriarch's benediction and are barking high and low to
denounce Aoun for saying what the Patriarch himself has been saying.
In fact, during last week's presidential election charade, the
Patriarch held out for a very long time against pressure to name
"his" candidate and demanded that due process, as stipulated by
the constitution, be adhered to regardless of who gets elected. In
other words, the leader of the Church himself was asking the civilian
political leadership to leave him and the Church alone and out of their
wranglings. It was only under intense pressure and in the sincere hope
of breaking the logjam that he volunteered a very long list of names,
from which Parliament and the politicians were supposed to choose
candidates for elections. With the failure of the latter to act as
promised, Patriarch Sfeir was reported to be very angry because he
was duped by those same people who are crying foul today against Aoun
for agreeing with the Patriarch.
It remains that if the Moslems in Lebanon want to continue using
archaic and backward mechanisms to have unelected clergymen
represent them, that's their business. But the "Christians" of
Lebanon, as traditionalist Maronite leaders Amin Gemayel and Samir
Geagea and such like to remind us, claim to be more "advanced" and
"more democratic" than their Moslem compatriots. In fact, the very
foundation of Gemayel's and Geagea's political platform rests on
a decentralization of the Lebanese communities which then become
semi-autonomous within a federated State of Lebanon. Something like
the Swiss cantons. Such a "separation" from the Moslems, Geagea and
Gemayel argue, would allow the Christians to practice their "more
advanced" form of government without hindrance from the "backward"
Moslems who always want to inject Islamic Sharia law into daily life.
But if the current elected Christian leadership surrenders the
authority given to them by the people to the unelected head of the
Church every time they fail to make a decision - as happened during
the presidential election fiasco last week - then what's the point of
separating from the Moslems? What is the point of claiming to want to
practice a more advanced form of democracy if they turn around and act
exactly like the Moslems? What's the point of holding, running for,
and voting in elections? Do we really believe in democracy, in which
power rests uniquely with the people, and the people periodically
changes its leadership through elections? Is there really a belief in
the separation of Church and State within the Christian community? Or
is the Christian community in Lebanon as backward as the Moslems in
referring to religious leadership instead of the people when change
is needed or in times of crisis?
Lebanese democracy as it stands today is the prototype of the failure
of this oxymoronic democracy. Between the 1920s and the 1940s,
when the modern State of Lebanon was being shaped, after it enjoyed
autonomous status between 1860 and 1914 within the Ottoman Empire,
Ottoman rule legacy dictated that religious leaders take the reins
of their communities or "millets" as they were known to the Ottoman
State. Having laid the foundation for a modern State equipped with
institutions, this early form of Lebanese democracy turned out to
be a federation of millets, whereby the State was constituted by the
religious communities more so than by the Lebanese people themselves.
This would be similar to the United States having only a Senate
(representing the States) and no House of Representatives
(representing the people). The religious communities then in turn
claimed to represent the individual citizens. This parochial form of
representation kept real power in the hands of the bosses (Zuama) who
allied themselves with the Church (for the Christians) or the Mosque
(for the Moslems). An individual Maronite or Shiite Lebanese is at the
complete mercy of his Church or Mosque and the civilian bosses they
blessed. By the same token, no one in Lebanon can be recognized as
a citizen if he or she is a declared atheist or agnostic or a member
of a religion other than the 18 religions recognized by the Lebanese
constitution. In Lebanon, you will have no existence if you are a Hindu
or Buddhist. Also, one is born a Maronite or a Shiite or a Druze or
Armenian Orthodox first, then and only then is one a Lebanese citizen.
Time has come for Lebanese democracy to evolve and be more in tune with
modern times. This can be done in one of two ways. The first would
be to amend the political system to allow for direct representation
without the intercession of the religious communities, which would
require the State to handle civil status affairs (marriage, divorce,
inheritance, etc.) that are handled by the churches and mosques
today, candidates would run in elections on some other basis than
their religious affiliation, and all Lebanese citizens, regardless of
religion or lack thereof, have thus a place in the system. The second
way would be to institute a bicameral form of Parliament in which a
Senate is created representing the religious communities on an equal
footing (say 2 senators per community), leaving Parliament to represent
the people directly regardless of religious affiliation. This is the
case with such countries as the US (Senate represents the states,
the House of Representatives represents the people) or France (Senate
represents the departments, while the National Assembly represents
the people) or the UK (House of Lords represents the nobility and
the Church, while the House of Commons represents the people), and
many other countries.
Joseph Hitti is an ATA-certified Arabic translator, a former genomics
scientist and the President of Boston-based New England Americans
for Lebanon. He was born and raised in Beirut, Lebanon and currently
lives in Boston.