Federalism Reloaded

[Dry Ice]

Originally Posted by Muwatin Libnani

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.

Just to answer your comment, I can assure you that I used that comparison to represent the opinion of many people on the ground and to get the discussion started... Kindly consider the disclaimer as self-explanatory.

The idea is to see people's different opinions on this topic.

Regards

[>Watani<]

Originally Posted by sailormoon

Well if we take a look at the immigration rate and if we see how many Lebanese are dreaming to go elsewhere we can notice that a lot of people do not like the country the way it is...

لأنه لا يوجد فرص عمل وضمان شيخوخة وتسهيلات يوميّة في الحياة وليس لأن الوطن مجموعة طوائف! فاقتضى التوضيح
لا تبني تحليلاتك على أخبار وهميّة

[elias-aj]

Originally Posted by chafic

2- For opponents of such an idea, is the refusal based on a rejection of the whole concept or reservations regarding feasibility?

Both, Chafic.

Implementing federalism would be giving definitely the keys to the old feudal families.

Then, those families will carry on sharing their power on the federal level. Jumblatt will be given the presidency. Six years later, he will hand in the presidency to the Gemayel. Six years later, they will hand in the presidency to the Hariri family etc.

Secondly, nothing would really change. Imagine there is some tension between two "states". If the airport is in one "state", it will close the road to prevent people living in the other "state" from getting any access to the airport etc.

Now regarding the feasibility.

1°/ How would we draw the borders between the different "states" ? Sectarian borders ? What about christians living in the south, in the bekaa, in the north, in the Chouf ? What about sunnis living in the south, in the north etc. What about shiites living in Metn, in the north etc.

2°/ What kind of powers the constitution should give to the "states" ? What would be to weight of the federal government ? Considering the U.S. as an example - or other examples - would not necessarily fit in Lebanon.

3°/ Wouldn't the "states" have their own militias ?

Then let's consider partition that some here brought up in the discussion. Three or four countries. How could those countries manage to live and to develop by itselves ? Would we have four countries with each one having its own access to the sea, the syrian borders, its own international airport ? Free trade between those countries ? Won't we be obliged to find some field of coexistence because there will be an interdependence between every faction or, sorry, "states" ?

I guess we'll get back to the current issues. In every case you reach the same conclusion : we are obliged to live together and to find a way to live together. Federalism, partition, regionalism, centralism etc. are political systems which can be discussed in fact between people who already agreed to live together and to respect each other.

In fact, the same goes to the whole middle east. Lebanon, Syria, Israel (or occupied palestine if some prefer), Jordan and future Palestine state...all of these countries will be obliged to find an agreement in the near future and to live together in peace.

[chafic]

Originally Posted by elias-aj

Both, Chafic.

Implementing federalism would be giving definitely the keys to the old feudal families.

Why so? When people feel they're more in control of their choices, they'd make better ones.

Originally Posted by elias-aj

Then, those families will carry on sharing their power on the federal level. Jumblatt will be given the presidency. Six years later, he will hand in the presidency to the Gemayel. Six years later, they will hand in the presidency to the Hariri family etc.

Again, not necessarily, people would always be able to vote.

Originally Posted by elias-aj

Secondly, nothing would really change. Imagine there is some tension between two "states". If the airport is in one "state", it will close the road to prevent people living in the other "state" from getting any access to the airport etc.

Autonomy. Multiple airports, seaports, power stations....

Originally Posted by elias-aj

Now regarding the feasibility.

1°/ How would we draw the borders between the different "states" ? Sectarian borders ? What about christians living in the south, in the bekaa, in the north, in the Chouf ? What about sunnis living in the south, in the north etc. What about shiites living in Metn, in the north etc.

Indeed a dilemma.

Originally Posted by elias-aj

2°/ What kind of powers the constitution should give to the "states" ? What would be to weight of the federal government ? Considering the U.S. as an example - or other examples - would not necessarily fit in Lebanon.

That can be discussed.

Originally Posted by elias-aj

3°/ Wouldn't the "states" have their own militias ?

Maybe their police?

Originally Posted by elias-aj

Then let's consider partition that some here brought up in the discussion. Three or four countries. How could those countries manage to live and to develop by itselves ? Would we have four countries with each one having its own access to the sea, the syrian borders, its own international airport ? Free trade between those countries ? Won't we be obliged to find some field of coexistence because there will be an interdependence between every faction or, sorry, "states" ?

....

Originally Posted by elias-aj

I guess we'll get back to the current issues. In every case you reach the same conclusion : we are obliged to live together and to find a way to live together. Federalism, partition, regionalism, centralism etc. are political systems which can be discussed in fact between people who already agreed to live together and to respect each other.

In fact, the same goes to the whole middle east. Lebanon, Syria, Israel (or occupied palestine if some prefer), Jordan and future Palestine state...all of these countries will be obliged to find an agreement in the near future and to live together in peace.

You're right about this one.
But I'll add to "people who already agreed to live together and to respect each other", "or people who already agreed to live separately and to respect each other".

[Jorje]

Implementing federalism would be giving definitely the keys to the old feudal families.

Then, those families will carry on sharing their power on the federal level. Jumblatt will be given the presidency. Six years later, he will hand in the presidency to the Gemayel. Six years later, they will hand in the presidency to the Hariri family etc

Not true at all. The reason why those families have continued to be successful is basically "secterian paranoia" and the need for each community to feel united under one leadership so that its stakes get higher. In a federal system, you're giving each community an opportunity to breathe because it would have some form of autonomy, and thus, I expect the democratic culture within these communities to become more vibrant. Now, this is only true with the Christians.

Federalism, partition, regionalism, centralism etc. are political systems which can be discussed in fact between people who already agreed to live together and to respect each other.

I think this is only true for federalism but not partition. All you need for partition is consensus between the different communities on dividing the 10452 Km^2. I don't see why they have to agree to live with each other. Ofcourse there has to be some level of understanding because they will be neighbouring states, but it's not anything near the level needed if they still want to be in one country.

--

I think federalism is appealing, but like shadow mentioned, it will be useless if the mentality is not changed.

[mehdi soldier]

Originally Posted by ozzie

If federalism means formally naming different regions by confession, and consequently encouraging or coercing mass migrations in different directions, then it's a disastrous idea. That kind of partition is tragic, and Lebanon is too small and too much of a mosaic to try it.

If federalism means decentralizing political power, and giving more autonomy to local/provincial governments, then it's a great idea.

i think the above is the post that makes the most sense on this issue of federalism.

federalism is not a political solution but can be a civil or social solution.it can help in terms of helping the citizens.but politically thats the end of lebanon.

with blood thirsty leaders like ours,be prepared to have lots of massacres,ressettlements and many more troubles.

[TTT1]

This is an imposible solution .
Lebanon is Lebanon only if it is a full 10452 KM2. Lebanon history is thousands of years spread over all its territory.
The solution is to accept each others, and to build a good democratic foundations with the possibility of decentralization in many aspects but under one strong central government.
Finally, for those christians who believe this is a good solution, let them think again, christians are spread all over the terriorty from the south to the north and bekaa .
Enjoy the map taken from this week's economist and check by yourself.

[mehdi soldier]

Originally Posted by TTT1

This is an imposible solution .
Lebanon is Lebanon only if it is a full 10452 KM2. Lebanon history is thousands of years spread over all its territory.
The solution is to accept each others, and to build a good democratic foundations with the possibility of decentralization in many aspects but under one strong central government.
Finally, for those christians who believe this is a good solution, let them think again, christians are spread all over the terriorty from the south to the north and bekaa .
Enjoy the map taken from this week's economist and check by yourself.

i also want to add about the map you posted.its not as easy its even portrayed.i think the map makes it look easier than its really is on ground.even with those big chunks of land assigned to the bigger sects,there are pockets of all the other sects in those areas.

also,i observed that the druze area seems very big than it is on ground.their population is not more than 5% of lebanon's total,so i doubt how they seem to have such a big chunk assigned to them.also what about orthodox christians?it seems the map is generalizing and like i said even in those big chunks there are pockets of the other sects spread all over.

[just_lebanese_80]

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?

Just to add to what you said the main disagreements in Lebanon are not over internal issues but on the country's foreign policy and defence strategy which in any federal system are always handled by the central gvt so i don't see how those issue will be solved in a federal gvt where all the components of the federation have to be represented as opposed to the model we have now where all sects are represented.

[Dry Ice]

Originally Posted by just_lebanese_80

Just to add to what you said the main disagreements in Lebanon are not over internal issues but on the country's foreign policy and defence strategy which in any federal system are always handled by the central gvt so i don't see how those issue will be solved in a federal gvt where all the components of the federation have to be represented as opposed to the model we have now where all sects are represented.

What about the local/area security? Isn't a growing demand from a lot of people and a main point of disagreement nowadays..