Have just returned from a holiday trip to Turkey where I saw what secularism and democracy can do.

American backing? Lebanon could have it too,couldn’t it? (yes I know that politics is not my strong point.)

Quite by the way,the vast majority of passengers on the charter flight were Israeli Arabs pursuing a similar objective to ourselves…Taking a break from all the tension and aiming to have some rest and relaxation.

First I point your attention to the differences in political action between sects in Lebanon, the Christians are plural (many parties, opposition, competition etc.), the other sects have one or two big parties with the same agenda, so when you have political disagreement with their parties, all the sect becomes against you, it is very difficult to build a country like this…Taef or something else is doomed if there is disagreement because there is no democratic spirit in some sects in Lebanon.

Second, Taef or no Taef some groups in Lebanon are in Love with Syria and other Arab nations…if you want to do Lebanon’s interest but Syria’s interest or Egypt’s interest is different they will block you to help the UMMA…this is why power sharing did not work for 50 years and power separation may be better.

Three, all Moslim sects are obsessed with Israel…the fight with Israel (not only military but boycott and solidarity with other Arabs etc.) comes before anything else…so if Syria and Israel have a war or Egypt and Israel have big problems in 10 years this will affect Lebanon seriously with Taef or without Taef, again look at the past and look at the present how the population think (not the elite, the normal people on the street who work drivers, waiters etc.)…This passion against Israel is not in the Christian sect…We don’t care about Israel they mean nothing for us.

Personally I have a BIG problem with integration of Hezbollah in the Leb Army, they are stronger than the army and they can never be controlled because their religious ideology is the base…they will always obey the religious authority before the national…I see this becoming another way to waste money like Majles Al Janoub and all the other biased reward for only one part of the population.

Lebanon is a small country and Hezbollah or the Leb Army cannot defend it against Syria, Israel, Turkey, Egypt, USA etc. if they want to attack us we can resist better with Hezbollah but at the end we will be destroyed…Federalism in LEbanon with neutral foreign policy and UN guarantee for defense is our best option in my opinion…if some Lebanese want to follow Lahood and Hezbollah propaganda about “strong” Lebanon and resistance guarantee etc. then my opinion the solution becomes partition because most Christians don’t want to fight wars or help the Umma or worry about Egypt.

Again I don’t want to sound extremist but like Bachir said only honesty will save us…we cannot be ashamed to say this is our limit we cannot take more than this…I am not born Moslim and I don’t care about Jerusalem or Cairo or Damascus…if we continue to hope for compromise and build Des Chateaux en Espagne with Taef I am afraid we will all emigrate and our story will be over.

We clearly disagree here.

Lebanon is composed of overlapping layers of societies, all sharing a common thread that can be called “Lebanese” society, and the structural arrangement that keeps these societies together called “Lebanon.”

If you accept the hypothesis that people are united by some level of basic, almost instinctual motives in life, then you must accept that there is some common thread to allow for a even a vague comparison between Lebanese societies and other societies around the world.

People (i.e. societies) are driven by fundamental considerations that are common and logical. For example: people everywhere want to eat, want to sleep, feel productive, feel loved, etc. All those might be interpreted differently in different places and times, but the drive is fundamentally the same.

Notice I use the word societies. Countries, in the legal and political sense, clearly share similarities and differences in their arrangements and is not really an issue up for debate. Lebanon is very much like France in some ways, more like Somalia in others, and some aspects are indeed unique.

When we talk about federalism, we are talking about a political arrangement that may or may not reflect the realities of Lebanese society. It could be argued that federalism is indeed congruous with Lebanese society. I personally would agree with such a statement but feel its shortcomings outweigh its benefits, hence opting for a more moderate approach.

Anyway, the point is you can compare Lebanon to other countries in the world, and Lebanese to other societies in the world… but just have to operationalize discussion and really know what you’re talking about.

PS. I work in downtown. Anyone up for a coffee?

It’s back now though with everyone’s thoughtful responses.

Thank you everyone for the really nice comments. I’m glad we all feel the same way about Lebanese political attitudes. We have the basis for something really meaningful here.

To Both Tareq and N:
I used to hold the same opinions of Federalism. I really did. I even tried to sell Basil Fuleihan on the idea a long while ago and gave him a full 30-minutes on Federalism’s merits. His response is one that I’ll repeat again over and over again: “Federalism might be a great way to increase accountability, but it doesn’t solve our problems.”

Looking back on that conversation, I see now we have (at least) two problems to tackle: the lack of accountability and security.

As trust requires time, accountability is a better place to start. “Great! Why not Federalism?” you might ask… how about a more radical idea: Taef.

The Taef Accord provides for two important structural changes: a Senate and rapid decentralization. The Senate would represent sects themselves, and allow the Parliament to be elected on a popular basis with Christian/Muslim quota. Sect representation will be assured by the Senate, and if what we were saying about the healthy attitude-curve in society, we should have nothing to fear from a Parliament that’s popularly elected.

Decentralization, obviously, allows for local accountability. Not much elaboration needed.

As for security, I really feel there is common ground to be found. The vast majority of people want security, just dont know how to go about it. Some want to disarm Hizballah, others will defend them with their lives. The former cites law, the latter cites God. Let’s assume the bell-curve of attitudes and apply it to security.

The bell curve would imply that between the two extremes, the bulk of people would agree on an arrangement whereby Hizballah could take orders from the elected chain-of-command (Chief of Staff, Prime Minister, President…whatever), but would maintain structural integrity. This “Southern National Guard” as I like to call it, would be subject to the accountability by the elected Chief of Staff, but would maintain structural integrity for the sake of “fighting the 3adou”. Sign a permanent armistice with Israel (forget about permanent peace with ambassador exchange and trade as they’d both be blown up the same day). Back to the future: 1943.

This might all sound like a pipe dream, but, like you’re Shi’ite friend, I’m sure many Shi’ites and Lebanese would agree on an arrangement like that. Speak with people one on one and you’ll see that a good base of support for that arrangement: they’res really just no venue for their expression

Right now, as Rodge said so aptly, voting is insufficient. In fact, I’d argue routine voting is symbolic in most mature democracies. It’s only when large issues that touch on most people’s lives that we see really meaningful elections and high voter turnout. What promotes accountability are independent and effective judiciaries, courage and independence by the media, and mobilizing the “50%+” middle-class of society in elections. It’s those 50%+ who will safeguard against vote-payoffs and radical attitudes.

Want a big issue? Alter the constitution and have a popular referendum on the status of Hizballah. Even the most extreme federal systems (again, Switzerland) have them. Usually they’re on mundane issues but in Lebanon, a referendum on HA’s weapons would be the hottest election ever. Nasrallah wants a popularly elected President: let’s see him put his money where his mouth is and agree to a popularly elected “Resistance”.

So to recap: accountability and security. Everything else is… “basita”.

Back to work…

this is the best post ever … if you can keep it clean , god bless you…

When peaces becomes possible ? How is that possible , when we have criminals running the office? IZA kan rab al bayti bil tabli daribon ma ma 3la ahli al bayt ila al rakess !!!

Thank you chabeb .

So I think we have to be COMPLETELY honest with ourselves so we can convince Sunni and Shia that this is a bad deal for everyone…Like Mikel said we need more open discussion and dialogue on Federalism or other systems, that is my opinion.

Amir, Ataturk is not enough because without USA backing for the Turkish Army then Turkey will have returned to a Islamic country and now they have a Islamic Parliament and Islamist President…I prefer Federalism or partition not unity by force of the army.