One thing I've noted about Lebanon, both when I lived here in my adolescence and now with my move back is that Lebanese always lament the 'what Lebanon used to be like.' Bygone are the days in the early 70s before the war, where the country was beautiful, everything functioned and sectarianism was absent. Well, maybe sectarianism is stronger today but people seemed to still identify with the differences in their mindset as unique to their sect. Then, there was a strong middle class and stronger secular parties, like the Lebanese Communist Party, which served as a conduit for secular-minded people. However, according to foreigners who visited Lebanon in this 'golden-age' the country looked the same and functioned quite similarly. If we keep lamenting the past, how shall we move forward?
Another thing is that many, not all, Lebanese sum up the country's problems with this catch-all phrase: "this country is cursed." Tayeb, tell me, how are we to fix the country if it's cursed? This is throwing in the towel, saying the problems are not in your hands. It's a really cheap way out of trying to seek change on an individual level.
We need to stop looking back, leave Allah at home, and find a way, through a consensus, to fix this country.
Which brings me to another point: the Shi'ites. Honestly, the way that this country has dealt with the Shi'ites is shameful. Since Lebanon fully claimed it's independence in 1943, we built up the country's infrastructure and institutions, but forgot about the South--where most of the Shi'ites come from. Shi'ites are traditionally poor farmers, who at the time of independence, were a minority. Lacking much clout, the government brushed them aside, leaving the south without proper plumbing, electricity, schools, hospitals...And yet we wonder why these people are bitter? We wonder why they support Hezbollah in overwhelming numbers---the party who built infrastructure for them and gave them proper services? The Lebanese Communist Party (LCP) was the main provider of services to these and other sects' poor, unacknowledged areas. But with the civil war of 1975-1990, sectarianism rose and the LCP's membership fell.
To this day things have not gotten better with regards to including Shi'ites into this country and government. I've been to the bekaa valley and the south, two Shi'ite stroongholds. Many of the Shi'ite towns that have been littered with cluster bombs have not been cleaned up. Roads and houses that were destroyed have mostly been repaired by Hezbollah. Many villagers told me they hadn't even see a Lebanese official visit since the fighting ended on August 14. You may say: "why should these Hezbollah supporters
My friend Ahmed, a Sunni, made a good point: "The Sunnis, Druze and Christians leave this country, they go aborad for education and jobs. The Shi'ites are the only ones that stay." So in a way, these are Lebanon's most dutiful citizens, but they are forming a state within a state which contrasts this notion. If we made attempts to include them in the government without shunning their ways and politics, they'd have less of an incentive to form this micro-state. They'd have to play by the rules of the game.
And now, the unity talks:
Well, all things considered, the Shi'ites are the biggest sect in Lebanon at the moment. I don't think people would say otherwise. Fine, the Sunnis, Druze and Christians combined form a larger bloc but it's an alliance of conveinience. And a weak one a that: anti-syrian bloc. As far as party ideologies go, there's apparent differences.
To keep ignoring Shi'ite demands they way we have and catering to more influential sects' needs only serves to further Shi'ites feelings that they are disenfranchised and need to look out for their own. Unfortunately, the way this constiution is formed, is several parties are competing in elections in one area, whichever party recieves 51% of the vote, when's the sates for that area. So this forces people who want to sit in parliament to run with the bigger parties, and in the south and Bekaa, this is Hezbollah.
I don't want a religious state. But we need to break down confessionalism, cater to everyone's needs, not just the rich, and establish a working constitution so we can get this country going. Sometimes things need to get a little worse before they can get better.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Today's protest and funeral for Pierre Gemayel
First off, I'd like to announce that I added a new segment to the Conspiracy post, below. I've added another reason why Aoun and Hezbollah may have done it.
Today was the funeral for Gemayel (Wednesday was the mourning). Afterwards there was a big protest at Martyr's square. There were maybe 10-20,000 people there, tops (and that's generous). 'Official' statistics said hundreds of thousands attended. I've been to many a protest, and I'd say that's an extremely stretched number. Other people in attendance felt similary.
First, let me get this out of the way: I attended the protest because I want to know how people feel about the political situation here. Second, I was there to protest the death of an innocent, regardless of political allegiance.
I went down to the protest with three other women, all middle-aged. Two from England and one from France. One, who shall be named something snazzy like Jamila, is a supporter of March 14. This is fine by my standards because I don't support anyone.
Anywho, Jamila and I got to talking. I figured that because she's from England, she'd be more open-minded and willing to talk to me as someone who likes to play the devil's advocate. I asked her her thoughts on why she supports March 14 and who she thought carried out the assasination. Then I asked her about our constitution and the national unity government.**explained below***
What should we do with it? She says that the constitution should not change and that there should be no national unity government. So I ask her why? Doesn't she think the constitution is terribly flawed and outdated? No, she replies. I then sked about the national unity government--should one ber formed, in her opinion? No, she says. Hezbollah wants to take over and start an Islamic regime. They cause a lot of trouble--for instance this past summer's war with Israel. So I said "don't you think that maybe it'd be better to talk to Hezbollah and stop avoiding them (which is what our current government, which is comprised of the March 14 party, has done). Doesn't avoiding the Shi'ites only serve to further the sectarian rift and create more of a state-within-a-state, like Hezbollah has? Then, she went beserk. Turns out that living in England, a place with a stable civil society where people deliberate, not fight, over politics, hasn't served her well. She's a lot like the many Lebanese here--you aren't supporting us 100%, then you're an enemy. There's nothing to discuss (much like my last post).
Right there, in the middle of the Kataeb protestors that are waiving their Kataeb flags while we stand on pictures they burnt of Aoun and Nasrallah, she starts accusing me of being a Nasrallah supporter, very loudly. She's asking me if I want an Islamic state.
"Well, no, I am Christian, and not even religious."
"You want Nasrallah to make an Islamic state!"
I asked her to stop putting words in my mouth, I'd never said that. She stormed off after making another ad hominem attack.
This is what I fear for the country. You are not allowed to question why people believe what they believe if you are not concurring with their opinion. How are we to move forward if we cannot talk?
Anyway, the rest of the protest went a little oddly. I found that it was really divided. The Hariri supporters (Future movement) were in this area, chanting their slogans while the Geagea (Lebanese Forces) supporters retorted with theirs, also in a separate area. And the Kataeb were a bit more spread, but also with their crosses and flags.
Oh yes, good old confessionalism.
The speakers were pretty inciteful, saying things like "If [Syria] wants war, we'll give them war," Geagea said. Maybe not the best thing to belt out to several thousand people if you claim that you're trying to keep the country stable (since they are also pointing a finger to Hezbollah and Aoun by accusing Syria).
Also, in one predominately-Shi'ite town that used to be a Sunni stronghold, leftover Sunni residents tried to hang a picture of Saad Hariri, their leader, by a Nasrallah poster the Shi'ites put up. There were no clashes, but some serious tensions that were forcefully quelled when the army came in. So yes, sectarianism seems to be on the rise, rise rise.
***{I'll put this into context: our constitution is about 60 years old and was influenced by the then colonial power, France. It stipulates that each sect recieves national power according to their numbers. So, at the time of independence, Maronite-Christians were the majority, so they recieved the Presidency. Sunnis came next with the prime ministerialship. Third was Shi'ites who recieved the speaker of the house position. And it goes down accordingly (there are 18 different sects in Lebanon, a country that fits five times into America's smallest state, R.I.). So, 60 years later, our confessional constitution remains intact based on the same consensus we had in the 1930s (no one wants to do a new head count for fear of losing power or wriling up conflict) . Obviously the demagrophics have changed--Christians are a minority and it seems that Shi'ites are probably at 40% of the population whereas before they were the minority (they pop out a lot of babies). So there is discussion now about giving the Shi'ites a more proportionate percentage in the parliament, which would lead to national unity talks and perhaps the changing of our constitution (which is terribly flawed anyway, to every sects' disadvantage.}
Today was the funeral for Gemayel (Wednesday was the mourning). Afterwards there was a big protest at Martyr's square. There were maybe 10-20,000 people there, tops (and that's generous). 'Official' statistics said hundreds of thousands attended. I've been to many a protest, and I'd say that's an extremely stretched number. Other people in attendance felt similary.
First, let me get this out of the way: I attended the protest because I want to know how people feel about the political situation here. Second, I was there to protest the death of an innocent, regardless of political allegiance.
I went down to the protest with three other women, all middle-aged. Two from England and one from France. One, who shall be named something snazzy like Jamila, is a supporter of March 14. This is fine by my standards because I don't support anyone.
Anywho, Jamila and I got to talking. I figured that because she's from England, she'd be more open-minded and willing to talk to me as someone who likes to play the devil's advocate. I asked her her thoughts on why she supports March 14 and who she thought carried out the assasination. Then I asked her about our constitution and the national unity government.**explained below***
What should we do with it? She says that the constitution should not change and that there should be no national unity government. So I ask her why? Doesn't she think the constitution is terribly flawed and outdated? No, she replies. I then sked about the national unity government--should one ber formed, in her opinion? No, she says. Hezbollah wants to take over and start an Islamic regime. They cause a lot of trouble--for instance this past summer's war with Israel. So I said "don't you think that maybe it'd be better to talk to Hezbollah and stop avoiding them (which is what our current government, which is comprised of the March 14 party, has done). Doesn't avoiding the Shi'ites only serve to further the sectarian rift and create more of a state-within-a-state, like Hezbollah has? Then, she went beserk. Turns out that living in England, a place with a stable civil society where people deliberate, not fight, over politics, hasn't served her well. She's a lot like the many Lebanese here--you aren't supporting us 100%, then you're an enemy. There's nothing to discuss (much like my last post).
Right there, in the middle of the Kataeb protestors that are waiving their Kataeb flags while we stand on pictures they burnt of Aoun and Nasrallah, she starts accusing me of being a Nasrallah supporter, very loudly. She's asking me if I want an Islamic state.
"Well, no, I am Christian, and not even religious."
"You want Nasrallah to make an Islamic state!"
I asked her to stop putting words in my mouth, I'd never said that. She stormed off after making another ad hominem attack.
This is what I fear for the country. You are not allowed to question why people believe what they believe if you are not concurring with their opinion. How are we to move forward if we cannot talk?
Anyway, the rest of the protest went a little oddly. I found that it was really divided. The Hariri supporters (Future movement) were in this area, chanting their slogans while the Geagea (Lebanese Forces) supporters retorted with theirs, also in a separate area. And the Kataeb were a bit more spread, but also with their crosses and flags.
Oh yes, good old confessionalism.
The speakers were pretty inciteful, saying things like "If [Syria] wants war, we'll give them war," Geagea said. Maybe not the best thing to belt out to several thousand people if you claim that you're trying to keep the country stable (since they are also pointing a finger to Hezbollah and Aoun by accusing Syria).
Also, in one predominately-Shi'ite town that used to be a Sunni stronghold, leftover Sunni residents tried to hang a picture of Saad Hariri, their leader, by a Nasrallah poster the Shi'ites put up. There were no clashes, but some serious tensions that were forcefully quelled when the army came in. So yes, sectarianism seems to be on the rise, rise rise.
***{I'll put this into context: our constitution is about 60 years old and was influenced by the then colonial power, France. It stipulates that each sect recieves national power according to their numbers. So, at the time of independence, Maronite-Christians were the majority, so they recieved the Presidency. Sunnis came next with the prime ministerialship. Third was Shi'ites who recieved the speaker of the house position. And it goes down accordingly (there are 18 different sects in Lebanon, a country that fits five times into America's smallest state, R.I.). So, 60 years later, our confessional constitution remains intact based on the same consensus we had in the 1930s (no one wants to do a new head count for fear of losing power or wriling up conflict) . Obviously the demagrophics have changed--Christians are a minority and it seems that Shi'ites are probably at 40% of the population whereas before they were the minority (they pop out a lot of babies). So there is discussion now about giving the Shi'ites a more proportionate percentage in the parliament, which would lead to national unity talks and perhaps the changing of our constitution (which is terribly flawed anyway, to every sects' disadvantage.}
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)