There are some in Lebanon who claim that criticizing the government implicitly weakens the state without helping much. Given the current situation in the country and the region, the government cannot do much better, they claim. It is an interesting argument, and one whose detractors would quickly respond to by claiming that in fact no government could do much worse, pointing to protracted crises in water, electricity, sewage, public education, the economy, and national security. How could any self-respecting government stay in place if it cannot deal with any of these issues?
The fundamental question that begs itself, however, is: Does criticizing the government help or hurt the state? The answer indelibly must begin by highlighting a key difference: A state is not defined by a single government, but rather all its governments and institutions past, present, and future. Therefore, having a strong state is one thing, while assessing the government and justifying a mediocre performance in the name of safeguarding the state is another. One could very well argue, for instance, that only through constant government performance monitoring and accountability can any nation hope to build a stronger state. Whereas, protecting inefficient governments from any form of criticism is the surest way to mediocrity and a debilitation of the state. So perhaps the real question here is this: Is one not implicitly calling for a stronger state when asking for the changing of the guard of an underperforming government?
Another question to ask here: Who stands to benefit from having no political criticism in the name of "safeguarding the state" and why? History has shown that typically, dictatorships and autocracies use the "weakening of the state" argument to fend off critics, imprison, or banish them. For such systems, criticism of any form is seen as a threat to the existence of the state, simply because such systems assume that the government and the state are amalgamated into one big blob. And since these systems have no use for political opposition, the "weakening of the state" argument gets used often to justify clamping down on any form of dissent. Interestingly, while no dissent historically gave an impression of monolithic power, it has proven to be quite hollow. The Soviet regime, Latin American juntas, and Arab dictators all tried to get away with it and failed.
More plural societies who allow for criticism tend to do better with social experiments continuously yielding new ideas and energy through the constant changing of the guard. In time, this heterogeneous approach tends to create a stronger core and a stronger state. Unfortunately, in the case of Lebanon, which is also a relatively plural society, considering the tragic state of national affairs, one needs to ask whether it is possible not to criticize the government and demand its resignation at a time when bad governance can be seen, heard, touched, and even smelled daily everywhere in the country. For instance, how can one not be critical when for the past 15 years electricity has been promised but not delivered. How about water shortage in some cities, while it floods other regions? What about the public teacher salaries issue which resulted in strikes and also remains unresolved; and the garbage catastrophe befallen the nation, with no collection for months. And last but certainly not least, what about the ill-equipped Lebanese security services being asked to face a very difficult regional security situation? What gives any government the right to expect not to be criticized for its failure to resolve any of these issues? What gives it the right to remain in office?
These questions were alluded to somewhat by the outgoing British ambassador to Lebanon, Tom Fletcher, declaring that his government would likely have fallen if it had simply faced the predicament of the ongoing Lebanese garbage crisis (let alone all the others). His statement is historically correct and many a British government has been laid to rest for much less an infringement. Indeed, some were even dispensed with at their zenith. The case of Winston Churchill being thrown out of office weeks after winning World War II (while the post-war Potsdam conference was still in session!) is a classic example. The British public thought that their future lay elsewhere and sent him home. To argue that all this change of government was intended to weaken the British state is foolhardy. In fact, the entire British empire, from China to the Americas, was built on the ashes of expired governments.
Lebanon's history and future will never rest on one government, but on an institutional revolving door. This government as others will have to accept criticism and respond to it. As it has shown itself unable to, then as others before it, it will have to leave by the revolving door, paving the way for another to come in- one better equipped to provide serious answers to the nation. The net result will not be a weaker but a much stronger Lebanese state.
The fundamental question that begs itself, however, is: Does criticizing the government help or hurt the state? The answer indelibly must begin by highlighting a key difference: A state is not defined by a single government, but rather all its governments and institutions past, present, and future. Therefore, having a strong state is one thing, while assessing the government and justifying a mediocre performance in the name of safeguarding the state is another. One could very well argue, for instance, that only through constant government performance monitoring and accountability can any nation hope to build a stronger state. Whereas, protecting inefficient governments from any form of criticism is the surest way to mediocrity and a debilitation of the state. So perhaps the real question here is this: Is one not implicitly calling for a stronger state when asking for the changing of the guard of an underperforming government?
Another question to ask here: Who stands to benefit from having no political criticism in the name of "safeguarding the state" and why? History has shown that typically, dictatorships and autocracies use the "weakening of the state" argument to fend off critics, imprison, or banish them. For such systems, criticism of any form is seen as a threat to the existence of the state, simply because such systems assume that the government and the state are amalgamated into one big blob. And since these systems have no use for political opposition, the "weakening of the state" argument gets used often to justify clamping down on any form of dissent. Interestingly, while no dissent historically gave an impression of monolithic power, it has proven to be quite hollow. The Soviet regime, Latin American juntas, and Arab dictators all tried to get away with it and failed.
More plural societies who allow for criticism tend to do better with social experiments continuously yielding new ideas and energy through the constant changing of the guard. In time, this heterogeneous approach tends to create a stronger core and a stronger state. Unfortunately, in the case of Lebanon, which is also a relatively plural society, considering the tragic state of national affairs, one needs to ask whether it is possible not to criticize the government and demand its resignation at a time when bad governance can be seen, heard, touched, and even smelled daily everywhere in the country. For instance, how can one not be critical when for the past 15 years electricity has been promised but not delivered. How about water shortage in some cities, while it floods other regions? What about the public teacher salaries issue which resulted in strikes and also remains unresolved; and the garbage catastrophe befallen the nation, with no collection for months. And last but certainly not least, what about the ill-equipped Lebanese security services being asked to face a very difficult regional security situation? What gives any government the right to expect not to be criticized for its failure to resolve any of these issues? What gives it the right to remain in office?
These questions were alluded to somewhat by the outgoing British ambassador to Lebanon, Tom Fletcher, declaring that his government would likely have fallen if it had simply faced the predicament of the ongoing Lebanese garbage crisis (let alone all the others). His statement is historically correct and many a British government has been laid to rest for much less an infringement. Indeed, some were even dispensed with at their zenith. The case of Winston Churchill being thrown out of office weeks after winning World War II (while the post-war Potsdam conference was still in session!) is a classic example. The British public thought that their future lay elsewhere and sent him home. To argue that all this change of government was intended to weaken the British state is foolhardy. In fact, the entire British empire, from China to the Americas, was built on the ashes of expired governments.
Lebanon's history and future will never rest on one government, but on an institutional revolving door. This government as others will have to accept criticism and respond to it. As it has shown itself unable to, then as others before it, it will have to leave by the revolving door, paving the way for another to come in- one better equipped to provide serious answers to the nation. The net result will not be a weaker but a much stronger Lebanese state.
Great Article. Wissam. I will post it on my Facebook page.
ReplyDelete