At different junctures over the past few months (years actually), Lebanon's cabinet has found itself at a standstill. This time it was triggered by one minister refusing to sign a bill approved by the cabinet. At others times, it has been for other reasons. There are some who regard this simply as Lebanon's political system balancing itself through partisanship. Is it or is it perhaps due to a faulty democratic design, which essentially allows anyone of the three branches of government (Presidency, Cabinet, or Parliament- the Judiciary unfortunately is currently too weak to make a difference) to have a veto effectively putting a spike in the wheel of government? Unfortunately, strong evidence seems to point to it.
Lebanon's democratic design has been in effect (with some constitutional tweaking) for about seven decades. During this time, one would assume that being a democratic system, it would have established some self-correcting mechanisms. Unfortunately it hasn't, and the political system has proven to be quite unstable with civil strife recurring in the 1950's (under the Presidencies of Khoury and Chamoun), 1970's (under Franjieh), 1980's (under Gemayel), and this last decade (under both Lahoud and now Suleyman). On average, cabinets get shuffled every 18 months. It would not be an exaggeration to state that the Lebanese political system at times seems more in tuned to instability than stability.
At the heart of the issue may be the multitude of divisions and segmentations enshrined in the Lebanese parliamentary democracy. These cross-sections may be sectarian, regional, and even economic class. And while these rigid political divisions and quotas are seen by some as a way to protect one portion of the population against the other, in effect it does the opposite by weakening all portions of the population and even more so the state itself. Constant fear mongering has perpetuated these divides, and what has resulted is a constant and relatively easy hold by some leaders. Ironically, the leaders themselves, while perhaps able to split some spoils, are also weakened by their weakened constituents. No leader in Lebanon- even while holding a national office- can truly claim that they represent all of Lebanon, because no leader in Lebanon has ever been voted in by all of Lebanon. As surprising as it may seem to some readers, political leaders in Lebanon- with the exception of parliamentarians- do not run for office and rarely have to compete for their job. Lebanon's President is typically chosen at the last minute without the population having ever heard of his plan. The same applies to the Prime Minister who is appointed by the President through parliamentary consultation. The choice of cabinet has lately turned into a painful tit-for-tat negotiation rendering it as a weakly glued unit that is ready to burst at the seams at the slightest challenge.
It is therefore no wonder why lately some popular leaders- who boast of strong parliamentary representation- act in ways that pre-empt both the President and the Prime Minister. Intrinsically, they are questioning the true support those in power actually wield. And while their question and behavior in a normally-functioning democracy may be legitimate, in Lebanon it may be missing the point, because Lebanon's system was not built to support mass support. Rather, it is what some in Lebanon like to sell as a "consociational democratic" design. In other words, it is a design, which needs everyone’s tacit approval. Unfortunately, history has proven once and again that consociationalism is useless when the parties do not agree. Just ask the common citizen if they would prefer consociationalism with no electricity or electricity with no consociationalism. Of course, we are also assuming here that the so called consociational democratic system itself is stabilizing, when Lebanon’s history proves everything but.
It is easy to blame this party or that for the current Lebanese gridlock. I prefer to take a step back and study things objectively. What is happening now has little to do with electricity or wages. Rather, it is symptomatic of a much deeper problem with the overall system, which desperately needs some fundamental re-engineering. Lebanon’s democracy may continue to limp along, but it does no Lebanese any good to close their eyes to the possibility of re-thinking a system while safe-guarding each of Lebanon’s community needs and attending to their fears. We are all Lebanese after all, and if we truly love this nation, we should aspire to constantly be thinking of new ways to improve how society works and functions. And if we were to fail in our social experiment, well then I suppose we would have this rotten system to fall back on after all, wouldn't we?
Lebanon's democratic design has been in effect (with some constitutional tweaking) for about seven decades. During this time, one would assume that being a democratic system, it would have established some self-correcting mechanisms. Unfortunately it hasn't, and the political system has proven to be quite unstable with civil strife recurring in the 1950's (under the Presidencies of Khoury and Chamoun), 1970's (under Franjieh), 1980's (under Gemayel), and this last decade (under both Lahoud and now Suleyman). On average, cabinets get shuffled every 18 months. It would not be an exaggeration to state that the Lebanese political system at times seems more in tuned to instability than stability.
At the heart of the issue may be the multitude of divisions and segmentations enshrined in the Lebanese parliamentary democracy. These cross-sections may be sectarian, regional, and even economic class. And while these rigid political divisions and quotas are seen by some as a way to protect one portion of the population against the other, in effect it does the opposite by weakening all portions of the population and even more so the state itself. Constant fear mongering has perpetuated these divides, and what has resulted is a constant and relatively easy hold by some leaders. Ironically, the leaders themselves, while perhaps able to split some spoils, are also weakened by their weakened constituents. No leader in Lebanon- even while holding a national office- can truly claim that they represent all of Lebanon, because no leader in Lebanon has ever been voted in by all of Lebanon. As surprising as it may seem to some readers, political leaders in Lebanon- with the exception of parliamentarians- do not run for office and rarely have to compete for their job. Lebanon's President is typically chosen at the last minute without the population having ever heard of his plan. The same applies to the Prime Minister who is appointed by the President through parliamentary consultation. The choice of cabinet has lately turned into a painful tit-for-tat negotiation rendering it as a weakly glued unit that is ready to burst at the seams at the slightest challenge.
It is therefore no wonder why lately some popular leaders- who boast of strong parliamentary representation- act in ways that pre-empt both the President and the Prime Minister. Intrinsically, they are questioning the true support those in power actually wield. And while their question and behavior in a normally-functioning democracy may be legitimate, in Lebanon it may be missing the point, because Lebanon's system was not built to support mass support. Rather, it is what some in Lebanon like to sell as a "consociational democratic" design. In other words, it is a design, which needs everyone’s tacit approval. Unfortunately, history has proven once and again that consociationalism is useless when the parties do not agree. Just ask the common citizen if they would prefer consociationalism with no electricity or electricity with no consociationalism. Of course, we are also assuming here that the so called consociational democratic system itself is stabilizing, when Lebanon’s history proves everything but.
It is easy to blame this party or that for the current Lebanese gridlock. I prefer to take a step back and study things objectively. What is happening now has little to do with electricity or wages. Rather, it is symptomatic of a much deeper problem with the overall system, which desperately needs some fundamental re-engineering. Lebanon’s democracy may continue to limp along, but it does no Lebanese any good to close their eyes to the possibility of re-thinking a system while safe-guarding each of Lebanon’s community needs and attending to their fears. We are all Lebanese after all, and if we truly love this nation, we should aspire to constantly be thinking of new ways to improve how society works and functions. And if we were to fail in our social experiment, well then I suppose we would have this rotten system to fall back on after all, wouldn't we?
No comments:
Post a Comment