The Genius of Democracy

Following the Brexit vote and more recently the Trump shock election win, I have been asked on several occasions whether I still believed in democracy—a question posed with a tinge of sarcasm to be sure, considering my writings on democracy and my preaching on a Bill of Rights. My answer has been and continues to be affirmative: I still believe in democracy; and actually now more than ever. In fact, I would argue that these two elections prove one thing above everything else; and that is the genius of democracy. But let me first qualify myself, lest the reader mistaken my argument as a political stand. It isn't.

First and foremost, I did not vote for Brexit because I am not a British citizen. Nevertheless, as a global citizen, I was against the measure and much preferred the UK to stay in the EU. So my hypothetical vote would have gone against what the majority of Brits eventually chose. Come US election time, I was indeed eligible to vote and did; but it wasn’t for Mr. Trump either. Three primary issues earned my vote and they were: Free education for those in need, having a female President for the first time, and assuring a clean environment. Mr. Trump’s abrasive rhetoric and controversial stances on minorities made my choice all the easier to take. Of course, I came out yet again on the losing side of the vote.

To a casual observer, perhaps the conclusion a voter such as myself should draw is that democracy doesn’t always work. ‘Surely, these two choices could not have been optimal for their respective societies, could they?’ they ask.

Actually, it’s the wrong question. Getting the election “right” or “wrong” was never really the point of democracy, nor its purpose in the first place—putting aside the sticky issue of who without a crystal ball is to determine ex-ante what is right and what is wrong (And if someone did have such incredible powers, what would be the point of having elections to begin with?). In reality, no one knows for sure how things play out; and one has to wait and see to judge any new government’s performance purely on its own merits.

But what is the purpose of democracy, if not to provide for an optimal result? A subtler and more significant reason is to give everyone a chance to run and for the winning majority of the electorate to take full responsibility for its choice. In other words, regardless of who wins, the victors and their supporters, have to go out and perform. If they do well, it would have been good for everyone. If they don’t, they would have been given their fair chance and have only themselves to blame; needing eventually to step aside for the democratic cycle to churn ad infinitum. Meanwhile, the nation is spared any negative consequences that come from disenfranchisement. Therefore, regardless of who the short-term winners and losers may be, ultimately it is a win-win for the nation.

In this lies the genius of democracy. As long as the perpetual wheel of democracy keeps turning and the rules of the game (as enshrined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) are fair and protect everyone, especially the opposing minorities; then in the long term, and regardless of any single choice made by the electorate, the system irons things out and endures. As such, for all his inflammatory remarks and the potential doom scenarios being discussed, Mr. Trump should be given the chance to at least assume his duties, to fail (or succeed), and then to leave not unlike the forty four elected Presidents before him. In the meantime, there will be plenty of institutional means to curb his enthusiasm at the federal, state, and local levels; not to mention civilian protests if things really go awry.

Yes, I do continue to believe in democracy; and no, I don't believe these elections will spell its doom. Quite to the contrary, closely contested elections in age old democracies only prove enduring vibrancy and legitimacy, not found in any other political system invented by man. At the end of the day, democracy always moves on … And in this lies it's genius.

What does Saad Hariri’s Recent Presidential Endorsement Say about Him?

After two years of vehemently opposing it, former Prime Minister Saad Hariri yesterday did an about face endorsing the candidature of Michel Aoun for the Presidency of Lebanon. In his endorsement speech, Hariri stated that his choice represented a “risky political move for himself”, which he was willing to take as a “sacrifice for the sake of the country”. Three questions beg themselves: What choices did Hariri have? Why did he make his choice? And what does it all say about him?

The first question is what choices did Hariri have? In his own coalition, he had several, among whom were candidates such as Harb and Gemayel—the first a prominent lawyer and politician, the latter a former President. A third and more extreme choice was of course Samir Gaegae, the head of the Phalange party. Having been jailed for many years, Gaegae remains a polarizing figure, who garners the admiration of few and the disdain of many. Of the three, Hariri chose Gaegae as his first Presidential candidate. The most salient explanation, at the time, was that it was his attempt to counter the endorsement for the presidency of another polarizing figure, Aoun, by Hezbollah.

Not surprisingly, Gaegae’s endorsement didn’t pan out; and Hariri felt compelled to find another candidate. To the chagrin of Gaegae, in place of finding a more suitable candidate within the coalition, Hariri decided to endorse one of the opposing camp’s candidates, Suleyman Franjiyyeh who happens to be one of Gaegae’s most bitter enemies (And whose family it is said were ordered to be killed by Gaegae during the civil war!). The fact that Franjiyyeh barely has a high school degree, did not seem to have deterred Hariri from making his choice. In his mind, in no way did it represent a depreciation of the highest office in the land. The explanation at the time was that Hariri was attempting to split the opposing camp by endorsing one of their two candidates. They did not budge, and Franjiyyeh’s candidature eventually fared as well as that of its predecessor.

Feeling compelled yet again to search for a third candidate, Hariri once more overlooked his own coalition members. This time, however, he decided what would have been unthinkable to him and his coalition only a few days earlier: He endorsed Aoun. In his endorsement, Hariri justified it by stating that all his previous candidates had not had “luck on their side” and that the final choice had to fall on Aoun. Putting “luck” aside for a moment, the fact that the candidate is an octogenarian, highly polarizing, and an ally of his political enemies did little to phase Hariri. In his mind, there was no other choice. But what about Harb and Gemayel? What about centrists and highly qualified alternatives-men like Helou, Obeid, Baroud, and Domianos? For some reason, to Hariri, they did not seem to exist; or they were deemed unworthy of the highest office.

Why did Hariri make these seemingly erratic choices? In his announcement, Hariri mentioned the need to “sacrifice for the sake of the nation”. But what exactly was Hariri sacrificing; and why didn’t he have the foresight to realize the importance of this sacrifice two years earlier and not waste the nation’s time and energy with his opposition to Aoun’s candidature? Some say it is due to new developments in the Syrian conflict; and that in nominating Aoun, Hariri was trying to salvage something … anything. If that were the case, one must pause and ask what then did Hariri ask for in exchange for Aoun’s endorsement? With some claiming that it was an implicit deal for him to return as Prime Minister, they believe the only sacrifice he was making was that if his own coalition and all that it stands for, in exchange for his own interests. Is it any wonder then that so soon after the endorsement, several of his own party and coalition’s senior members came out speaking against the endorsement?

Many more questions than answers are being raised as a result of Saad Hariri’s precipitous announcement. Regardless, one final key question to ask is what does all this say about Hariri himself. After all, his choices have been undeniably erratic with little if regard to any decorum for the highest office in the land. Hariri seems to have as weak a hold on core beliefs as he does loyalty to his own coalition and constituency, let alone strategic rectitude and discipline required to uphold them. If that were the case, one last question indelibly begs itself: Is Saad Hariri himself qualified or worthy to ever again be the Prime Minister of Lebanon?

Building a Bridge Between Constitutional Trenches

Lately some prominent Lebanese politicians have been vehemently rejecting—and on several grounds—the suggestion of a new constitutional assembly meant to introduce a new constitution. First, in light of the current political gridlock, they state that it would not be the right time. Second, they raise fears that it would likely come at the expense of minorities and may lead the country into an unknown. Third, they assert that no fair constitutional settlement can come about when one party is privy to weapons, while the others are not. And finally, they use the argument that the post-civil war constitution has yet to be implemented to begin with; and until it is, it would be pointless to discuss another constitutional assembly.

On the other side of the debate, those calling for a Constitutional assembly maintain that the country has fared disastrously for seven decades under the current constitution, so have the minorities. They point to an endemic lack of governance and accountability as being symptomatic of a deficient social contract, which needs ripping and replacing. They claim that a constitutional assembly drawing a new constitution is in fact the only way to fend off any of Lebanon’s communities who are trying to usurp power through an edict of “fait acompli”. And finally, they conclude that waiting for any previous constitution to be implemented is a fool’s errand adhering to an old Lebanese proverb, “If it were going to rain, it would have clouded”.

Of course the backdrop to all this debate is that Lebanon is seeing one of the worst constitutional crises in its history, with parliamentary elections postponed twice (and already talk of a third postponement), a Presidency seat vacant for more than 2 years, a gridlocked ministerial cabinet barely able to govern, and an inconsequential constitutional high court system. All the while, the nation is faced with immense security challenges, a massive national debt, uncontrollable fiscal deficits, water, energy and service delivery shortages, and a protracted influx of refugees that many fear will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

In light of all the above, are either of the two sides in a position to win the debate and somehow convince the entire nation of a transcendental step in either of the polar opposite directions? Or is there perhaps a third way—a compromise of sorts?

On the one hand, the Anti-New Constitutional Order are implicitly arguing that the current system is the best anyone can get. Theirs is a somewhat strategically weak position, considering the deteriorating state of the nation. The primary question these Antis have to face, though, is whether it would be better to look at options now or to wait. If they wait and gridlock persists, they risk seeing a calamity unfold (financial or otherwise) placing them in an even weaker negotiating position. On the other hand, those in the Pro New Constitutional Order find themselves in a slightly less precarious strategic position, because facts generally support their argument of system dysfunctionality: Nothing seems to be working. The problem for the Pros, however, is that they face an opposition which sees itself in a zero sum game. This means the more the Pro-Constitutional Assembly group over-reaches in its demands, the more entrenched the Anti-group will become, having little to lose. Delays leading to systemic breakdown and chaos do not really help the Pros either, whose entire reasoning one assumes is to act to strengthen the state.

And so the question that emerges is can a compromise be reached; and is there an alternative Constitutional instrument that could possibly help bridge the emerging chasm?; and whose primary purpose would be to allow sufficient reform to get the wheels of government moving, while simultaneously allaying the fears of the Antis? The answer is yes, there is a constitutional instrument that can provide a middle ground; and it is what is typically referred to as a Bill of Rights.

A Bill of Rights essentially introduces certain basic rights that the Lebanese people are demanding to compensate for salient Constitutional deficiencies, while re-affirming the current Lebanese Constitution. It would aim to shift the focus of the Constitutional debate to that of protecting citizen rights. Of course, those rights that are already in the constitution, would remain the law of the land, whereas the new rights assure further protection from abuse. A Bill of Rights properly elaborated would also introduce mechanisms for guaranteeing that the Lebanese Constitution as well as amendments found in the Ta’ef accord, not only are properly respected, but thoroughly implemented. The overarching goal of a Bill of Rights would be to strengthen the Lebanese state by introducing the necessary tools to avoid gridlock, while balancing it with an eternal check on its power by the citizens themselves.

How are the Pros and the Antis likely to react to the concept of a Bill of Rights? Since there would be no constitutional assembly, the Antis should no longer be fearful of entering discussions. Indeed, a Bill of Rights could prove to be exactly the tool needed to strengthen the rights they so fear losing. Whereas the Pros who favor constitutional changes would also be satisfied, as such a Bill could bring the needed ingredients that can add stability and strengthen the state, without risking the entire enterprise. A Bill of Rights means both sides end up net beneficiaries: The different communities in Lebanon would find a way to protect their individual rights and their way of life, while the state is reformed and fortified.

As the Lebanese state sees a steady decline, can the Lebanese afford to sit idle and remain polarized in their Constitutional trenches? Or is it time for opposing communities to unite and try to build bridges towards a more positive future? If so, it appears there may be no other solution that represents an opportunity for a fair compromise, except for a Lebanese Citizen Bill of Rights.

Conversation with Syrian Refugees in a Camp outside Munich, Germany

I am in Unterschleissheim, a tech hub suburb of Munich in Germany. For a couple of days I had been going to business meetings in the area. Close by in the neighborhood, I spotted a small camp with a gate and sign that says Caritas. I also saw what looked like Middle Eastern men milling about or sitting on a bench basking in the sun whenever the weather permitted.

My wife by my side, I decided to stop by and talk to them to learn their story. As I approached the short open fence, I was not sure I would be allowed to speak to them, even though I could not see any security or police anywhere near.

- Marhaba (Hello), my name is Wissam. I was passing by and thought of stopping by to say hello. I am Lebanese.

The man looked at me silently for a moment, then broke a shy smile.

"Ahlan (Welcome), my name is Omar. Sorry my hands are a bit greasy. I have been fixing our community bikes."

- Are you a Syrian refugee? I asked.

Omar: Yes, most of us here are.

- Which part of Syria are you from?

Omar: Deir el Zor. But there are guys from all over in this little camp.

- I am from Beirut but I live in America. I am visiting Munich on business. How did you end up here in Munich?

Omar: Well, it was quite a long trip. Difficult to believe now ...  Walking, running, swimming, cars, buses, trains. Through Lebanon and Turkey ...

- Are you here with your family?

Omar: No I came alone. My family is still in Syria. We are all men here in this camp.

- Why aren't there any women?

Omar: Most couldn't take the trip. Once in Germany, the authorities put us single men in refuge camps like this and families with kids in other places.

- It must have been difficult for you to leave your family behind.

Yes, I miss them and we are all working on trying to bring them over in a safer way.

- May I ask why you decided to leave Syria?

Omar: I was forced to make a very difficult choice. Either leave or fight.

- What do you mean?

Omar: I received a letter inviting me to join the army, I decided with my wife that I would leave the next day before being forced into the army. I am an accountant not a fighter.

- You are an accountant?

Omar: Yes. I was the controller of a bank, a Lebanese bank in Syria actually, the Franco Libanais.

- Oh wow. Is everyone here this professional?

Omar: No, there are different backgrounds and different levels of education. Some cannot read Latin characters only Arabic. Others are ok and have begun learning the German language very quickly. (He breaks out showing off his German to my wife).

- Are you still in touch with your family back home Omar?

Omar: Yes, all the time.

- Really, how?

Omar: WhatsApp, Facebook, Skype, Email.

- You mean Syria still has Internet?

Omar: Yes, most cities still have it. This guy is from Qamishle. He is in touch with his family every day. The other one is from Damascus suburbs. The same. (They all come close to say hello)

- Are you allowed to leave this camp whenever you want?

Omar: Yes, of course, we are refugees not prisoners.

- How have you been treated by Germany?

Omar: Quite well. They have given us shelter, they give us a stipend, and are processing our refugee paperwork.

- You mean you are now legal?

Omar: Yes, some of us are, for the others its in the works. This is my refugee passport and ID. I am now allowed to travel all over Europe with it.

- Have you interacted with the local community?

Omar: We receive six-hour daily  German lessons, so some of us can now interact better. We are now trying to give back by providing Arabic courses to the community.

- Do the people treat you well here, Omar?

Omar: Yes, but they don't really know us. Some of them are afraid to interact with us not knowing what to expect. Everyone has heard of refugees but few actually get to meet them. Maybe once housing opens up, we can mix better.

- When will you be allowed to live outside the camp?

Omar: Once you are given papers. But here in Bavaria housing is not easy, so some of us have been here for eight months in this small camp, even though we already have papers. Hopefully, housing will become available soon. But its ok here and it has all the basic needs. Would you like to see the camp inside?

- Sure.

Omar: Let's sign you in first ... We don't really need to but its better. [We walk through gates to one of the modules and go in a door that says administration. To Caritas admin in Arabic]: These guys are here to visit us, can you please sign them in?

- He looks German. How come he speaks Arabic?

Omar: Actually, he is half German half Iraqi.

- Interesting to see how this housing was built.

Omar: All this housing was built out of containers.

- Looks nice on the inside. Do they clean it for you?

Omar: No, we keep it clean and organized ourselves. It is spacious. Here is our laundry room ... Our kitchen area. We buy our own food and cook ... This is our classroom. Would you like to see some of our bedrooms?

- Sure

Omar: Most have one or two beds, a closet, and a small fridge.

- I see you have Arabic pita bread.

Omar: We buy it from the Middle Eastern bakery in the town. Would you like to have some tea? Please sit down and I will invite some friends to join.

- Do you miss home, Omar?

Omar: There is no place like home.

- Would you ever go back?

Omar: Yes if the situation was better. But our region is not good for a family; and I am hoping to settle here once my family can join me.

- Have you been affected by the war?

Omar: Every Syrian has been affected by the war. My nephew was forced to join the army 6 years ago. His mother, my sister, has not been able to see him since. He is having to fight against his cousins and neighbors. I cannot imagine how he will be if he ever comes back. He was an innocent kid.

- Has your city been as affected as Hallab or Homs?

Omar: Most cities in Syria have been. He is from the reef of Damascus (suburbs) which are basically cities outside the city of Damascus and there has also been massive destruction there. We now have a housing problem here in Bavaria as much as we have it in Syria!

- What are your hopes for the future?

Omar: To live in peace, be productive, and raise a happy family.