Federalism Reloaded

[General my General!]

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

Then you must check the feelings of the general Sunni and Druze streets vis-a-vis the general Shiite street... What happened might not be an attempt towards unity for some who weren't directly involved in the clashes, however many of those who bore the brunt think otherwise.

I agree, never said otherwise. It is obvious that some will be thinking of that given the recent events, partly why I made an exception of the short-term.

I'd like to differentiate between the perspectives of the common people, and those of the main Lebanese political actors.

I see that the latter would not go for it, because economy-wise I doubt it would be a viable model. Especially given the hostile birth that this federal system would have. That is why I do not see it as a challenge.

On the individual level for the people, I would agree, it is a major challenge to be overcome. But given the above, I do not see federalism happening.

Security-wise is another dimension. Puting aside regional/international potential -- knowing the 'leaders' we have in this country -- if they did go for federalism, we'd probably end up with each state having it's own 'legitimate' police or even military force...which I feel increases potential for conflict. That is another reason why I reject federalism.

[shadow1]

Originally Posted by Libnene Qu7

So basically you want to divide Lebanon into different nations?

I cant reasonably see it reaching a state of stability and peace any other way. the alternative is constant wars until you have one winner at the end. This isnt about great human idealism but about realism. Look at us today with all of our dsparate political aspirations and forget for now the more important cultural differences, do you see us as one nation?

[sailormoon]

Originally Posted by elias-aj

In fact, it's a good question Dry Ice.

I'm deeply against federalism for some of the following reasons :

1°/ Lebanon is a very small country.

Lebanon is 10 452 sqkm , Luxemburg for ex is around 3000 sqkm same as Honk Kong, Monaco is around 1000 sqkm Andorra and Liechtenstein are even smaller etc... if we federalise Lebanon each canton would have approximatively a size similar to the states i ve mentioned

Originally Posted by elias-aj

2°/ There is only 3.5 to 4 millions inhabitants.

So what ? Cyprus (which is divided btw) has 700 000 inhabitants same as qatar , Kuwait has 1 million , Iceland has 200 000 inhabitants , Luxemburg has 500 000 inhabitants . Here again, if we federalise Lebanon, the cantons would have a population from 250 000 to more than 1 million which is the population of one of the states i ve mentioned above.

Originally Posted by elias-aj

3°/ Even if there are "christians areas", "druze areas", "chiites areas" and "sunni areas", those areas are still mixed and there is even 50/50 areas with people from any sects living together.

After the civil war i hardly see mixed areas exept place like Basta or Zokak el Blat in Beirut were Sunni and Shias are mixed. There are no more 50/50 areas. The only important problem I see is the existence of "enclaves" like qubayat and Christian villages in the Sunni dominated Akkar, the Saida area in the South , Marjeyoun , Jezzine and places such as Rmeish or Ain ebel , Hasbayya and Rashaya in the Bekaa .

Originally Posted by elias-aj

4°/ I think that the most important issue is to allow other areas than Beirut to develop from an economical point of view. Regarding this issue, we could consider either a new development policy or to implement a form of regionalism. This is to be discussed.

I think that if there will be one day federalism in Lebanon , Beirut should be the federal capital , an undivided and common area.

Originally Posted by elias-aj

5°/ I hope that some day we'll be able to work on the building of a lebanese nation where lebanese consider themselves lebanese before considering themselves sunni, chiites, maronites etc. Implementing federalism is from my point of view in contradiction with this idea.

a lot of people and generations tried that before you without success... it just doesn t work for many reasons.

Originally Posted by elias-aj

Though, if the current lebanese generation is not able to start working on building a nation etc. and if this current generation is still stupid enough to engage in civil strife or civil wars every 10 years...then...then if implementing federalism could help stopping insanity, massacres and wars between brothers and cousins and neighbors...

The roots of all the problems in Lebanon is due to it multisectarian population and the fact that each sect will try to have the upper hand and that the other ones will feel dominated and oppressed. due to that we have militias and each few years there s a war or a crisis.

Originally Posted by elias-aj

One of the worst things, if this option was chosen, is that the Israelis would be able to say : "See ? Always been told look at the lebanese example of coexistence. This was pure BS. Let us keep our political system and if the palestinians are good boys, we may grant them with a little state in Gaza and in some other places, provided they keep quiet."

They are already saying that since 1975 in case you didn t notice. Who cares anyway...

Originally Posted by elias-aj

Another bad thing is that the very conception of Lebanon would be ruined. And we all would fail. Lamentably.

The conception of Lebanon is that it s a multisectarian country , I don t see how it would be ruined if each sect would have it autonomy.

P.S. : to conclude i would like to ask a question , we are discussing a lot about federalism in many threads , personnaly i like the idea of federalism , but who in the political scene is asking for it or even talking about it ?!

[chafic]

Originally Posted by shadow1

Federalism is only a cosmetic remedy. How could you make a country out of people with fundamentally different cultures with all what that entails, different social traditions, political aspirations and allegiances to different countries? Lebanon is not Switzerland by any stretch of the imagination.

For federalism to succeed you have to have an atmosphere of tolerance in the country and that only exists notionally in Lebanon as a part of the usual mutual deception and delusional expectations in its population. When the country was created in 1920, it was stillborn then and what we are seeing today are the consequences of that one event.

Before you set out the academic conditions for federalism to succeed as in liberal and secular democracy for example, you have to ask yourself how likely it is that we can achieve these things considering that a disagreement with a couple of govrnment decisions nearly led the country to a full blown civil war and it might very well still lead there. Now are these people fit to co-exist?

True, but is partitioning easier to implement (as in through consensus) than federalism?

[Dark Angel]

in my opinion the system itself does not matter. what matters is its correct implementation, whether it is complete federalism or a more central oriented form of rule.

the problem with Lebanon is that the constitution is never respected and is always twisted to serve and benefit those in power, instead of being protected and enforced by them.

The constitutions of the first and the second republic had many positive aspects, and the negative ones could have been amended to the benefit of the citizen, but unfortunately the people harbors more esteem for militias and warlords than it does for the state and supports the wrong caliber of leaders to power. A tribe's mentality is bound to fail under any form of governance.

as a result, even if federalism is implemented it will not solve much, we will still be stuck in the same destructive circle, simply because the Lebanese do not have a law abiding attitude and mentality.

[shadow1]

Originally Posted by sailormoon

P.S. : to conclude i would like to ask a question , we are discussing a lot about federalism in many threads , personnaly i like the idea of federalism , but who in the political scene is asking for it or even talking about it ?!

That is why they have failed and will continue to fail in finding any solutions to anything even the power grid that delivers electricity to everyone. What these politicians are trying to do is find a power sharing formulae for the country that would have been approproiate 60 years ago. In essence they are sixty years behind the times.
How could you hope to build a conutry when one of its major or minor group for that matter always will have to feel that it deserves more than what it got. Hence the recipe for eternal conflict.

[Libnene Qu7]

Originally Posted by shadow1

I cant reasonably see it reaching a state of stability and peace any other way. the alternative is constant wars until you have one winner at the end. This isnt about great human idealism but about realism. Look at us today with all of our dsparate political aspirations and forget for now the more important cultural differences, do you see us as one nation?

Given the vast cultural and political differences, wouldn't partitioning produce a number of different quasi-nations that would perpetually be at war with each other? I don't think that's the solution, in fact, I believe it's adding fuel to the fire.

[shadow1]

Originally Posted by Libnene Qu7

Given the vast cultural and political differences, wouldn't partitioning produce a number of different quasi-nations that would perpetually be at war with each other? I don't think that's the solution, in fact, I believe it's adding fuel to the fire.

two things:
1st. they are now and they are likely to stay in a state of war without separation.

2nd: If they will continue to fight each other after that, and even when they have their own states, all that tells me is there really is no love lost between the people. Damned if you do and damned if you dont, let's see how the politicians will have to solve this catch 22 riddle.

[shadow1]

Originally Posted by chafic

True, but is partitioning easier to implement (as in through consensus) than federalism?

That will depend on how much the well-being of the other matters. You cant do much without human decency.

[Muwatin Libnani]

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

The topic of federalism has been thoroughly discussed but that was prior to May 7.

May 7 if anything constitutes the sharpest challenge since 1990 to the idea of Lebanon as a central and unified state.

What is your opinion on that matter, do you support or oppose it?

Did your feelings about federalism change in one way or another during the past few years?

Thoughts appreciated..

Disclaimer: opening the discussion does not necessarily mean supporting the idea nor rejecting it, the thread op reserves the right to express his opinion in due time.

Thanks

Dry Ice,

While you state you are neither advocating nor opposing federalism, it seems to me that the reason you thought about it was the observation that “May 7 if anything constitutes the sharpest challenge since 1990 to the idea of Lebanon as a central and unified state.” In other words, what you are saying is that because establishing “a central and unified” state is a challenge, why not give federalism a try to see if it would help us better.

Sounds appealing at first, but then, when we look at what federalism truly entails one might notice that implementing “true federalism” could be in fact more challenging than someone might think. Here is why:

By definition, Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority AND constituent political units. Federalism holds that BOTH the federal government AND the state governments are co-equals.

Therefore, when we think about federalism we tend to focus on the dividing, decentralizing, and distributing power among the different constituent political units part, yet, we forget or turn a blind eye to the fact that federalism requires the establishment of a strong central authority as well! Thus, the premise of trying out federalism because “May 7 is a challenge to the idea of Lebanon as a central and unified state” cannot hold water simply because if the Lebanese people aren’t able to reach a consensus on forming a central government then neither the current system nor federalism is going to survive!

My 2 cents, political systems are failing not because of the systems themselves but rather due to the mentality of a large group of Lebanese citizens and leaders who failed miserably in making them work. Therefore, if we want to come up with something that is likely to work for us the first step is not to change the system but rather the mentalities and the intentions which if unchanged, no system, irrespective how attractive and successful it is, is doomed to fail!

Regards