Sectarianism and Revolution: The Devil is in the Details and in Us
General "Butcher" Haig must have dismissed criticism of his inept leadership of British forces in World War I and believed ultimately in Britain's victory. The two million men who died under his command, while sincerely mourned I’m sure, were but mere details: "the plan," Haig must have thought, "is sound." He was not alone in thinking he's the only right thinking man on Earth. We are all guilty of rigidity in thought and belief; we are all human after all. But revolutions need revolutionary thinkers, people unencumbered by certainties.
The mathematical rigour and discipline required in the pursuit of scientific knowledge allow us to abandon our certainties in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary with our pride intact. We have to be ready to change our views, ideas, opinions and, yes, even our most solid and dependable certainties. This is not to be mistaken for the Jumblatti practice of changing sides to achieve a political end.
As I watched on the news the second Sunday rally of my countrymen and women who were demanding an end to our sectarian-based political system, I thought to myself: I wonder how many certainties would have to be shattered for their dream and mine to come true?
First, we have to recognize and understand the nature of our (political) science, the elements of our experiment (the people and the system), their relationship to one another and the variables acting on them, both external and internal. Then and only then we will start to realize how big a job it really is to effectively put an end to sectarianism as opposed to just talking about it or venting our frustrations in demonstrations.
I am not saying that people power is not effective; it is just as effective in changing regimes as sunlight is in setting dry twigs alight, but first the sun light needs to be focused with a magnifying lens. In people power too, focus is essential. Yesterday, there were two rallies, one demanding an end to sectarianism, the other expressing the frustration of one unarmed Muslim sect calling for the disarming of another armed Muslim sect. In Lebanese politics, it’s really that simple.
I have always wondered why the honor of being part of the resistance to Israeli aggression has to belong to one group, one sect. Why can't passionate Lebanese of all sects join, why can't the leadership structure of this resistance be composed of members of all sects? It’s such a simple instinctive question to ask. Is it that only one group sincerely wants to fight Israel, while other groups want to befriend Israel? These are taboo questions I know, but we need to have a real dialogue over them.
I don't want Lebanon to be helpless and ineffective at repelling an Israeli attack, but I do want the resistance to be open to other Lebanese. I don't want the resistance to be disarmed; I am more inclined to join them. But, even in to this most honorable of undertakings, the fight against the aggressor, sectarianism still intrudes. I am sure the Hizb would say there are Christians and other Muslim sects within the ranks, but popular perception is not of a Lebanese Resistance, it is of an Islamic Shiite Resistance, more to the point, an army for one particular Muslim sect. This is not my view, but everyone else’s.
So when I see well meaning Lebanese taking to the streets to demand what is their legitimate right, to be on equal footing with one another in all areas of life, I have to be skeptical and even cynical. In Egypt and other Arab countries that languished long under dictatorship, the choices were simple and clear: freedom or comfort. In Lebanon it’s not that simple.
For a Christian, the fall of sectarianism means the loss of privilege. Being less than half of the population we are awarded half the seats in parliament as per our constitution. Someone will come up one day, maybe when Christian numbers dwindle still further, and say: this is not fair. Which, strictly speaking, it is not. For the major political sects: Sunnis, Maronites and Shiites, they will also loose the privilege of having the Prime Minister, President of the Republic and Parliament Speaker, selected exclusively from among their ranks.
So we are asking a country whose culture is defined by maximizing gain in commerce to support an idea that will result in catastrophic loss of privilege for their individual sects. We are asking the conservative, deeply religious, fanatically devout Lebanese to get ready for the idea of a non-Christian President, to accept a PM who is not a Sunni, to accept that religion have no place in our political system whatsoever. Who are we kidding?
I stand by my earlier point which I mentioned in the previous post, each sect needs to clean its own 'political house', acclimatize to the possibility that they will loose some privilege but gain a country in return, only when this is achieved can a truly secular democracy emerge in Lebanon.
The mathematical rigour and discipline required in the pursuit of scientific knowledge allow us to abandon our certainties in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary with our pride intact. We have to be ready to change our views, ideas, opinions and, yes, even our most solid and dependable certainties. This is not to be mistaken for the Jumblatti practice of changing sides to achieve a political end.
As I watched on the news the second Sunday rally of my countrymen and women who were demanding an end to our sectarian-based political system, I thought to myself: I wonder how many certainties would have to be shattered for their dream and mine to come true?
First, we have to recognize and understand the nature of our (political) science, the elements of our experiment (the people and the system), their relationship to one another and the variables acting on them, both external and internal. Then and only then we will start to realize how big a job it really is to effectively put an end to sectarianism as opposed to just talking about it or venting our frustrations in demonstrations.
I am not saying that people power is not effective; it is just as effective in changing regimes as sunlight is in setting dry twigs alight, but first the sun light needs to be focused with a magnifying lens. In people power too, focus is essential. Yesterday, there were two rallies, one demanding an end to sectarianism, the other expressing the frustration of one unarmed Muslim sect calling for the disarming of another armed Muslim sect. In Lebanese politics, it’s really that simple.
I have always wondered why the honor of being part of the resistance to Israeli aggression has to belong to one group, one sect. Why can't passionate Lebanese of all sects join, why can't the leadership structure of this resistance be composed of members of all sects? It’s such a simple instinctive question to ask. Is it that only one group sincerely wants to fight Israel, while other groups want to befriend Israel? These are taboo questions I know, but we need to have a real dialogue over them.
I don't want Lebanon to be helpless and ineffective at repelling an Israeli attack, but I do want the resistance to be open to other Lebanese. I don't want the resistance to be disarmed; I am more inclined to join them. But, even in to this most honorable of undertakings, the fight against the aggressor, sectarianism still intrudes. I am sure the Hizb would say there are Christians and other Muslim sects within the ranks, but popular perception is not of a Lebanese Resistance, it is of an Islamic Shiite Resistance, more to the point, an army for one particular Muslim sect. This is not my view, but everyone else’s.
So when I see well meaning Lebanese taking to the streets to demand what is their legitimate right, to be on equal footing with one another in all areas of life, I have to be skeptical and even cynical. In Egypt and other Arab countries that languished long under dictatorship, the choices were simple and clear: freedom or comfort. In Lebanon it’s not that simple.
For a Christian, the fall of sectarianism means the loss of privilege. Being less than half of the population we are awarded half the seats in parliament as per our constitution. Someone will come up one day, maybe when Christian numbers dwindle still further, and say: this is not fair. Which, strictly speaking, it is not. For the major political sects: Sunnis, Maronites and Shiites, they will also loose the privilege of having the Prime Minister, President of the Republic and Parliament Speaker, selected exclusively from among their ranks.
So we are asking a country whose culture is defined by maximizing gain in commerce to support an idea that will result in catastrophic loss of privilege for their individual sects. We are asking the conservative, deeply religious, fanatically devout Lebanese to get ready for the idea of a non-Christian President, to accept a PM who is not a Sunni, to accept that religion have no place in our political system whatsoever. Who are we kidding?
I stand by my earlier point which I mentioned in the previous post, each sect needs to clean its own 'political house', acclimatize to the possibility that they will loose some privilege but gain a country in return, only when this is achieved can a truly secular democracy emerge in Lebanon.
Comments
Post a Comment