Interior Minister Ziad Baroud issued a circular on Wednesday giving every Lebanese citizen the right to remove any reference to one's religion in Civil Registry records. The circular said that the registrar should accept all requests made by citizens to delete reference to their religion in their records.
The circular said that such a right is protected by the Lebanese constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international agreements that Lebanon has ratified.
Article 9 of the Lebanese constitution states that freedom of belief is an absolute right and is one among other freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change one's religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest one's religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
The freedom of belief guaranteed by the Lebanese constitution includes the right to belong or not to a certain sect, the right to declare or not this belonging at the Civil Status Registry, and the right to strike it out or amend it.
While this is a major step forward towards a secularization of the Lebanese political system, major hurdles remain in eliminating religion entirely from public life. Lebanon's political system remains one of the most primitive in the world since one's national identity and political life are not governed by independent State institutions, but rather remain tightly in the hands of the churches, mosques and other organized religions that dominate the State. Lebanon's so-called democracy is a fallacy; the reality is that Lebanon is a federated theocracy where religious communities - not people - are represented in the government and State institutions.
For example, ordinary Lebanese cannot get married outside the church or the mosque, and divorces are a particular source of income for the religious clergy who abuse and exploit people in their predicaments to pilfer thousands of dollars of them before giving them an annulment or a divorce.
Another example is that in Lebanon you cannot be a Hindu, an agnsotic, a Bahai, an atheist, or a member of any other religion than the 18 that the Lebanese constitution recognizes. You have no civil status if you are not a member of those 18 communities. In effect, Minister Baroud's decree may be a smokescreen because it only removes "reference" to one's religion, but one's religion will continue to determine who votes and who runs for public office.
Yet another example is the insidious manner in which organized religions govern people's personal lives. In Lebanon, no two spouses in an inter-religious marriage are allowed to keep their own individual religions; Typically, the wife has to abandon her religion and convert to her husband's in order to be allowed to marry him. "Honor killings" are still protected by the law in Lebanon: Every other day, a Muslim woman is killed because her brother, cousin, or any male member of her extended family accused her or suspected her of an out-of-marriage relationship. Often, this is how a male relative who had forced a female member of his family into prostitution but who fears the woman might go public, silences her by killing her then declaring that she has "dishonored" the family.
These examples are only the tip of the iceberg that is the nightmare of Lebanon's theocratic system of government.
Hanibaal
9 comments:
I'm very sorry Hanibaal for being so negative, but this posting of yours leaves me no choice. It is loaded with mistakes, inaccuracies, misunderstandings and misrepresentations that are so commonly shared that one cannot really blame you for them.
- a Muslim doesn't get married in a Mosque.
- The Lebanese constitution doesn't recognise any community. A decree-law from the 1930s does that.
- Lebanon doesn't recognise 18 communities, but only 17 ones. And this is only true since the 1990s when the Alawites and the Coptes were "established" as Lebanese communities. Before that Lebanon had only 15 communities.
- Neither church nor mosque have a hold of the State; There is a very strict separation between Church and State (that is much stricter than in most European countries). As for the Muslim hierarchies, they are by law autonomous public institutions, but in practice function as completely independent institutions. They enjoy the financial backing of the State, but do not have any legal or political rights towards it.
- The Lebanese Republic is one of the most secular States in the Middle East. There is only one mention of God in our laws (as the "Higher One" in article 9 of the constitution), and state courts are not allowed to base their decisions on religious law. Neither the Bible, nor Cannon Law nor Shari'a are part of state law!
- Freedom of religion is absolute (article 9). And one can practice any faith he/she likes regardless of the recognition of this faith as a community.
- Lebanese judges have systematically refused to apply the law concerning "honour killings" for decades, withstanding the fact that parliament has voted back that law in each reenactment of the criminal code. And honour killings have nothing to do with religion.
- Conversion which is a religious matter is considered by the State as not falling under its juridiction (because of the principle of separation between State and religion). So the conditions of mixed marriages depend on the communities under which the couple chooses to marry. Only two communities in Lebanon refuse mixed mariage (and one of them doesn't allow conversions). Five communities allow inter-religious mariage between people of any faith. And the rest allow several forms of interfaith mariage.
- The question of communalism and secularisation are distinct. Lebanon is a secular country by most standards even though its political system is communal (the State does not apply religious law, the State doesn't fund religious schools, the State institutions do not interfere in religious matters, the religious institutions have no function in government).
- Theocracy is defined as a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God. This doesn't apply to Lebanon in any way. Actually, it's quite the opposite. At least two communities has suffered from the power of prominent politicians: Kamal Jumblatt and Walid Jumblatt have modified the laws governing the Druze community so as to be able to get their candidate elected. Rafic Hariri took over the control of the Maqassed and Saad Hariri has managed the nomination of several imams and muftis during the last 4 years.
- You consider Lebanon to have a primitive political system. Well, this is your opinion (and that of many indoctrinated Lebanese). But there is a whole school in political science that consider our system to be highly sophisticated, and our country is generally considered to be a good example of a consociative democracy.
Dear jcn,
I too am sorry to have to correct you. Here are your propositions and my answers to them.
- A Muslim doesn't get married in a Mosque.
> The term “Mosque” here does not refer to the building. It refers to the established religion of Islam, as one would say for example, to be married “in the Church” does not means the building, but the “Church” as an institution.
- The Lebanese constitution doesn't recognize any community. A decree-law from the 1930s does that.
> Lebanon as nation was founded by 17 constituent religious communities. Whether written or unwritten, the “Law” or the “Constitution” or “Precedent” or “Practice” or “Custom” in Lebanon is founded on the premise that one has to be a member of those 17 communities in order for one to have a personal / civil status, and in order for one to be elected to office or occupy any administrative position. That is why there has been a debate, forever it seems, about “deconfessionalizing” the system. What does that mean, in your opinion?
The Taif Agreement (under pressure from Syria) recognized an 18th community, that of the Alawis who were settling in large numbers in the city of Tripoli under the Syrian occupation. These are the same illegals to whom the Syrian collaborators Michel Murr and Rafik Hariri granted the Lebanese citizenship to please their Syrian masters.
- Lebanon doesn't recognize 18 communities, but only 17 ones. And this is only true since the 1990s when the Alawites and the Coptes were "established" as Lebanese communities. Before that Lebanon had only 15 communities.
> You should read your history. See my answer above. To draw a distinction between the “Lebanese constitution” as not recognizing religious communities, and “Lebanon’ as recognizing them, is argument in semantics. What is the point of having a constitution if we turn around and violate it in practice? If we do, then Lebanon is a failed State. This distinction is even more proof that religions and the institutions behind them override what you argue is a secular constitution.
- Neither church nor mosque has a hold of the State; There is a very strict separation between Church and State (that is much stricter than in most European countries). As for the Muslim hierarchies, they are by law autonomous public institutions, but in practice function as completely independent institutions. They enjoy the financial backing of the State, but do not have any legal or political rights towards it.
> Thank you for saying it. Muslim clergy are paid by the State. The Christian clergy choose not to be paid by the State. For you to say that there is a “very strict” separation of Church and State is laughable. In Lebanon one’s religious identity sets one’s political future. Again, I will point to the untenable distinction that you are trying to make, namely that the “LAW” as written appears to be non-religious, but the “PRACTICE” is all but non-religious. Then, Lebanon is a living fallacy.
- The Lebanese Republic is one of the most secular States in the Middle East. There is only one mention of God in our laws (as the "Higher One" in article 9 of the constitution), and state courts are not allowed to base their decisions on religious law. Neither the Bible, nor Cannon Law nor Shari'a are part of state law!
> Again, thank you for adding the qualifier “in the Middle East”. Of course compared to the jackasses in Saudi Arabia and Iran, Lebanon appears not to be a theocracy. But I must disagree with you: You see democracy and secularization as separable entities; I don’t. You cannot have democracy on one hand, and operate on consensus on the other hand. Democracy implies a simple Cartesian competition by the numbers. If you have elections, but limit the candidates to, for example, one Maronite and two Druze or whatever else, then those elections are not democratic. Democracy is not a matter of degree: It is either democracy or it isn’t. If we begin adding waivers and exceptions to the exercise of democracy, it ceases to be one. If I have to believe you, then I have to accept that elections in Syria, for example, where only one candidate runs and people are asked to say “yes” or “no”, are also democratic. In Lebanon, we do the same thing, except a little bit “less”, by offering people more than once candidate, but they have to be of certain “religions.”
- Freedom of religion is absolute (article 9). And one can practice any faith he/she likes regardless of the recognition of this faith as a community.
> Here you are thinking like a Dhimmi. To be merely “tolerated” and allowed to practice any religion is NOT absolute freedom. Absolute freedom of religion means the right to create one’s new religion, or not have any religion at all, AND STILL have personal status, be able to marry in Lebanon, be elected to public office, or be appointed in government administration. In Lebanon, once you are not a member of one of the 18 communities, you no longer have any of these “freedoms”. The State does not even recognize you exist.
- Lebanese judges have systematically refused to apply the law concerning "honor killings" for decades, withstanding the fact that parliament has voted back that law in each reenactment of the criminal code. And honor killings have nothing to do with religion.
> The argument in court for granting “attenuating circumstance” status to an honor killer is based on the claim by the murderer that his religion mandated him to kill the woman because she “desecrated” his honor. That was what the Taliban used to do in Afghanistan, and that is what Saudi Arabia does today. But again, Lebanon is “less” religious, but that does not make Lebanon better. As long as there is one murderer who gets away in an honor killing, then the law in Lebanon is primitive and not to the standards.
- Conversion which is a religious matter is considered by the State as not falling under its jurisdiction (because of the principle of separation between State and religion). So the conditions of mixed marriages depend on the communities under which the couple chooses to marry. Only two communities in Lebanon refuse mixed marriage (and one of them doesn't allow conversions). Five communities allow inter-religious marriage between people of any faith. And the rest allow several forms of interfaith marriage.
> Great. If I am a member of one of those two communities that do not allow intercommunal marriages, and I do marry someone from another faith. What happens to me? I lose my membership in that community, and as a consequence, I no longer exist as far as the State is concerned because I do not belong to one of the 18 communities. In Lebanon, you cannot be a Hindu, a Bahai, A Buddhist, an atheist, an animist, or believe is any of the myriads of religions that exist on earth. You have no personal status. You cannot hold public office. You cannot even vote in your district.
Recently, a Maronite bishop who hopes to be Batrak one day threatened to excommunicate any Maronite who “criticizes” the Batrak. You don’t think that this blatant interference in the political process? If that Maronite is excommunicated by the Fucking Maronite Church, he loses all his political rights. You call that a separation? You’ve gotta be kidding.
- Theocracy is defined as a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God. This doesn't apply to Lebanon in any way. Actually, it's quite the opposite. At least two communities has suffered from the power of prominent politicians: Kamal Jumblatt and Walid Jumblatt have modified the laws governing the Druze community so as to be able to get their candidate elected. Rafic Hariri took over the control of the Maqassed and Saad Hariri has managed the nomination of several imams and muftis during the last 4 years.
> Why do you think they did those things? Because there is too much power in the hands of the religious institutions that CONFLICT with political power.
- You consider Lebanon to have a primitive political system. Well, this is your opinion (and that of many indoctrinated Lebanese). But there is a whole school in political science that consider our system to be highly sophisticated, and our country is generally considered to be a good example of a consociative democracy.
> That “whole school in political science” is yours and only yours because you are indoctrinated by the religious institutions to believe that democracy and religion are compatible, that democracy is a matter of degree, and that as long as you have “some” democracy, and “some” freedom, then you can claim Lebanon to be a democracy. “Consociative” or “consensual” democracy is a fallacy, an oxymoron. It is an invention by the religious institutions to preempt real reform in Lebanon and make idiots like you think they are happy when they are not.
> Democracy implies a competition of numbers. Majorities and minorities competing. You cannot say I have a democracy, then turn around and break the rules of democracy. The moment you need to add a qualified like “consensual” before the word democracy, it ceases to be democracy. If we want to work by consensus between the communities, then let’s not call the Lebanese political system a democracy; let’s call find another term for a form of government in which people have no say, but where a limited number of religious communities are the decision-makers and the purveyors of political power: Maybe a THEOLIGARCHY? (i.e. a government by a small number of religious communities.)
> Lebanon needs a pure and simple revolution like the French revolution that is quintessentially anti-clerical and anti-religious. It was only through their revolution and their banishment of religion from all affairs of State that the French created a genuine democracy. Not one country in the West adds a special qualifier before the word “democracy” because they all agree on what democracy is, regardless of whether they are a republic, a monarchy, or any other form of government.
I am atheist. I believe that all religions are primitive forms of explaining the world. But I love Lebanon and I would like to be able to live in Lebanon without unelected idiots like the Maronite Batrak or Hassan Nasrallah wielding power directly or indirectly from behind their robes and their beards.
Hanibaal
Thanks Hannibal for taking the time to answer my lengthy bellicose comment. But as expected from such a comment, your reaction was defensive, and you spent most of the time justifying your position instead of hearing my arguments.
I'm actually specialised on this topic, so I won't go back to the arguments I gave you in my preceding comment. I'm just going to clarify certain positions and answer a couple of your comments that are basically counterfactual (but again you are not to blame for them because they are widely shared).
The Lebanese political system is a highly complex one. It's complexity stems from three factors: intricate legal & political institutions, a composite society and an ingenious (yet destructive) political class.
And such a complexity can only be addressed comprehensively and with caution, with as little ideological baggage as possible.
Moreover, secularism is in itself a very complicated issue.
- Do you know for instance that England has one and one only established religion (which is state funded and has several official responsibilities), but it also applies laws on blasphemy!
- Do you know that France has the largest number of official religious holidays in Western Europe... and they are all catholic. Or that it funds christian and jewish schools (but not muslim schools). Or that it owns all the old catholic churches that it repairs with public funds even though they are
- Do you know that in Germany, until recently, most people declared a religious affiliation, and when they did that, paid the State a special tax to fund these religious institutions...
I could give you many other similar examples. On issues of state and religion, things are not as simple as they seem.
One of the major problems we have in Lebanon regarding these issues is that on one hand we have very strong ideological positions concerning them (which is usually the case in all nations), and on the other, we have a very inaccurate understanding of our political system.
Just to give you an example based on a widely shared argument that you used. "Lebanon as nation was founded by 17 constituent religious communities". I've heard this sentence a million times and it is basically untrue. When Lebanon was established in 1920, the only recognised communities were christian and jewish, the Sunnis didn't consider themselves a community but a transnational umma (and they were actually organised as such), and the other muslim denomination were not recognised (the protestants were not recognised either, just tolerated). So the number could hardly amount to 12...
Moreover, most communities had no official religious representation in Lebanon then, and certainly had no political representation (except for those represented in the Administrative Council of Mount Lebanon, and they numbered 6 if my memory serves me right). So this talk of 17 founding communities is a fallacy, a political myth.
As for the number 17, it comes from the counting of the communities listed in the Decree-Law I mentioned the other day, only this decree-law was applicable to Lebanon and Syria, and some communities were actually organised in Syria and not in Lebanon, such as the Alaouites and the Ismailis. So those who speak of the 17 communities actually count the Alaouites... As for what you said about the Syrian intervention, it is partially true... Yes, the Syrians imposed on the Lebanese in 1992 two alaouite seats in parliament (it is not part of the Taef agreement). But the community was only legally organised a couple of years later.
Like many Lebanese, you confuse the question of secularism with the question of communalism... these are two distinct issues. It usually takes me an hour in class to explain the difference, so I'm not going to delve into that over here.
As for consociative democracy or consensual democracy, it actually exists in Europe. The best example is that of Switzerland. But Belgium has it too, and the Netherlands had it until the 1970s. As for coalition governments (or national unity governments), they are actually quite common (Italy, Germany, Israel have experimented with them extensively). Even countries that were adverse to the idea are now trying it out with what they call "non-partisan" or "bi-partisan" governments or administrations (it is the case of the current French government and the US administration).
I have to rush out of the house in a couple of minutes, so I'm going to add only one comment. You can be a Buddhist in Lebanon. My father was one for many years. There is even a buddhist temple in Lebanon. But you cannot apply buddhist law and you have to remain officially affiliated to one of the recognised communities for the applications of mariage and inheritance law. He was never worried about excommunication. Actually, he would have welcomed it. But do you know that this excommunication has no legal consequences to the state. The clergy cannot deprive you of your communitarian affiliation, only individuals are allowed to change it for themselves (once they have attained majority, before that, they follow their father's conversion, even if it is contrary to religious law)! As for the example you give about not being able to get married... it is true for mariages contracted in Lebanon, and not abroad. A friend of mine who had that problem just skipped to Cyprus and got married. His mariage is valid in Lebanon and the "clergy" cannot do anything about it. Did you know that we had a president who wasn't even a maronite any longer religiously and a prime minister who wasn't even sunni anymore religiously...
Again, things are more complicated than they seem...
A last word... Hassan Nasrallah is not a cleric. He interrupted his religious education to take a position in Hezbollah. He uses the title of "sayyed" and the black turban because he considers himself to be a descendant of Muhammad.
As for the Patriarch, the only power he has comes from what elected politicians give to him... And they do that to give themselves a "christian legitimacy"... They can choose to ignore him if they want. This is what Camille Chamoun did when he was president. But the March 14th coalition have taken the opposite direction (at one time, the SUNNI prime minister even asked him to name a president! which is actually anti-constitutional and institutionally impossible).
Dear jcn,
Now that we all know that you are a professor, I have to thank you for enlightening us about the arcane and academic nuances of the Lebanese political system, about which unfortunately many of us don't have the luxury to ponder beyond the vicissitudes of our daily lives.
I will not comment on every point you make, though interesting, because you are obviously the expert, but I will only point to the fact that what matters more in an instance like this is the "usage" or "practice" (الممارسة) rather than the theory.
The Lebanese never cease to scream at the top of their lungs that theirs is a democracy, and like you, that it is secular and "better" than many European systems, etc. We have heard this tune forever it seems.
And yet, somehow, Lebanon has utterly failed in guaranteeing, in practice, the basic needs, rights, freedoms, that organized society is supposed to grant its people. Whenever I am in Lebanon, I am gripped by a fear of the wanton, the arbitrary, the absence of reference; same feeling one gets from living in a dictatorship.
The question to you: Why is it that under such a fine system as Lebanon's, the Lebanese people are far from enjoying the basic benefits of such a system? Why is it that in Lebanon's 60+ years of history, two-thirds of that history has been spent in war? What are the root causes of this discrepancy between the "ought" and the "is"? I believe that, irrespective of how great a document the Lebanese constitution may be, religion is at the core of Lebanon's problems because religion continues to be the defining medium for the politics of the country.
If the Lebanese system is to succeed (where it has so far failed miserably) it must make the next leap beyond the nation-state institutions that were granted to us by Westerners. It must separate religion from state. Citizens' rights should no longer be subsumed under the communities' rights and privileges because, under this "consensual" democracy, people have no rights as individuals, they only have those rights that their communities choose to give them.
Hanibaal
Dear Hanibaal,
I never said that I was satisfied with the Lebanese political system. I too believe that that it has failed in many ways. But that doesn't mean it hasn't succeeded elsewhere... The global picture is quite dark, but there are some bright spots in it.
You criticise and yank my chain for being too theoretical. That might be true, but I believe my examples were quite practical. I'm sure we both agree that a problem cannot really be solved without a proper assessment. And such an assessments needs conceptual clarity and accurate data. The same conceptual clarity is needed to find a solution. Without conceptual clarity and accurate date, one can neither have a proper reading of the situation, nor benefit from other countries experiences in the field.
You are right, the Lebanese do scream recurrently that their country is a democracy, and that it is better than many other systems. But I've never heard anyone say that we are a secular country (probably because most people oppose secularism to confessionalism, which is erroneous).
But I'm sure you equally agree that the same Lebanese also complain relentlessly that "there is no state" and insist that the abolition of confessionalism (the system's most apparent characteristic) is a national priority... Don't you find that contradictory?
The Lebanese are actually very ambivalent towards their political system. In fact, even the constitution is ambivalent towards the system because on one hand it establishes confessionalism, and on the other it vows to abolish it (hinting that it is intrinsically bad). Don't brush it off as hypocrisy. The ambivalence runs quite deep (and can be explained) and people express it very genuinely.
I will briefly comment on two statements you make (I really have to get back to work).
1- "Religion is at the core of Lebanon's problems because religion continues to be the defining medium for the politics of the country".
This is actually your core belief. And it is shared by many learned people in Lebanon. I believe that it is only true if you conflate four distinct phenomena under the same banner: Religion. If you look closely, you would be able to distinguish : religion from communalism, from confessionalism, from clientelism. Even if they appear to be intrinsically intertwined, they procede from very distinctive dynamics. The first is based on faith and adherence to a dogma and set of moral and legal rules. The second dynamic is based on identity. The third dynamic is economical and is based on the relationship between "patron" and "client".
Let's take an example. During the 1980s, there were two distinct currents within the Lebanese Front: one was religious while the other was secular. But they both considered that the Lebanese Christians formed a nation, a distinct people (communalism). Kamal and Walid Jumblatt both had a very secular outlook. Most people in their community don't even know much about the Druze religion... And when Walid Jumblatt cleansed the Shuf, Aley and Zahrani of their Christian population, he didn't do it in the name of religion, but to guarantee his community's control of a region at a time when it felt threatened. It's not a question of religion, but a question of relations between communal groups, just like it is in Switzerland, in Belgium or in Spain (where groups define themselves linguistically even when they are bilingual...) or in Bosnia (a highly secularised country and society where groups share the same language but not the same religion... and a country where a third of the population had either a dual ancestry or was in mixed mariage!).
2- "'Citizens' rights should no longer be subsumed under the communities' rights and privileges because, under this 'consensual' democracy, people have no rights as individuals, they only have those rights that their communities choose to give them".
You oppose Citizen rights to Community rights... Well, let's take a closer look at the laws of the country. By law, the Citizens enjoy full rights. What rights do the communities enjoy? Two rights: to have schools and to have their religious laws in family law. That isn't much. The citizen can choose to belong to any of the established communities, and to practice a faith that isn't established. As for the political representation of communities... one cannot say it is a right given to communities? why? well, because the person "representing" the community doesn't have to be "representative of the community". There is the famous case of Najah Wakim, a Nasserist secular greek-orthodox politican, who was elected to Parliament with hardly a Greek-Orthodox voice! The Greek-Orthodox MPs and the Greek-Orthodox church tried to invalidate his election, and failed! Why? because political representation of communities is not a right guaranteed for the communities, but for individual members of the community.
OK, you must be saying to yourself: When JCN speaks of citizen rights, he says "by law", in other words "in theory"... let's look at the "usage" or "practice" (الممارسة). Well, who is impeding the rights of the citizens? Is it the Maronite Patriarch, whose opinions are only followed when they suit the interests of the ruling politicians? [Or is it Grand Ayatollah Fadlallah, whose opinions are never listened to by Lebanese politicians and who is openly and actively attacked and marginalised by Hezbollah]. No. What then? Could it be the politicians? Most probably, but do they do it through state institutions or through their own means? If it is the latter, why blame the state instead of blaming them?
P.S.
You want practical? I'll give you practical... ;-) I'll share with you in a couple of days a more effective and productive move Zyad Baroud could have taken... or maybe two moves.
It occurs to me that, since the Lebanese issue we are discussing has many components: religious, communalism, confessionalism, and clientelism, all of which are intricately intertwined, should be adopt a reductionist approach to a solution, whereby the problem is dissected into its components, and each component is then attacked separately.
If you maintain a zero-sum approach to the solution, we will never go anywhere.
So, yes. While I agree with you that many layers of Lebanese society are at play, including urban vs. village, social classes, feudal families, communities, religions, etc..., I have to believe that if one attacks one of those problems alone first, there is a likelihood of exposing the others, generating greater momentum for reform, and accelerating further change.
I happen to believe that religion is a core problem that ought to be addressed first. But I concede that perhaps religion is the toughest to butt heads with initially because of a likely stiff resistance. But then again, if religion is not that big a part of the problems of Lebanon, then shouldn't religion be the easiest gateway to reform?
Hanibaal
Well, my point was that these four elements are intertwined with one another. What I meant by that is that they kind of twist and twine together (think of a climbing plant or should I say a creeping plant...). I didn't mean that they are intrinsically connected. Their dynamics are totally distinct, even if a politician can try to work with all of them together. Two dynamics can be actually contradictory.
Let's take the parliamentary elections for an example.
* In 1992, there was a massive christian boycott of the elections. If there wasn't a confessionnal distribution of seats, chances are, there would have been a parliament with less that 20% of Christians. How do you think the Christian community would have reacted to that?
* Most constituencies in Lebanon are multi-confessionnal, and ALL voters (independently from their confessional affiliation) registered in a given constituency vote for a certain number of seats that are reserved to members of certain communities. This limits the political competition between people of the same community and encourages politicians to make cross-communal electoral coalitions. In a town like Tripoli, that is massively conservative and predominantly islamist, the electoral law allowed the formation of a coalition encompassing Mustaqbal, the Democratic Left and the Jama'a Islamya. Without such a law, there wouldn't have been a Christian MP in the region, no "left" party in parliament and a large sunni islamic parliamentary group. In other words, our electoral law has a moderating effect on our political life. In fact, even clientelism has a moderating effect. Without them, the coming elections in Lebanon would have resembled the results we saw in Israel last month. The two largest blocs would have been islamist (one Sunni and one Shiite), and you would have had a number of little local parties of 2 or 3 MPs, with members of medium sized communities having a very limited number of MPs.
You want to address religion first. Ok. What do you think should be done?
- abolish the religious courts?
- replace religious family law with civil law?
Well, part of the family law was made into civil law several decades ago. As I'm sure you know, inheritance law for non-muslims in Lebanon is civil, and not religious. And only civil courts are allowed to judge in such matters. But since its enactment in 1958, christian religious law has evolved, especially within the catholic church... So today, the catholic law of inheritance is much more liberal than the Lebanese civil law concerning children born out of wedlock.
One can also look at what happened in Egypt. The state took gradually control over all matters pertaining to family law and abolished religious courts. This was done at a time when the Parliament was either liberal or progressive. Since the 1980s, society has turned more and more islamic, and parliament and the courts have followed this trend. And it will undoubtedly increase. So civil law over there is becoming increasingly religious.
Hi jcn, I am wondering if u would be so kind as to tell me where the buddhist temple in Lebanon is? I am a buddhist in Lebanon and I cant find a temple!!!!
Kfarhbeb,
I have a younger relative of mine in Beirut who is a Buddhist. Why don't a few of you get together and establish a temple...
My intuition tells me that you will be very quickly hounded by the batraks and bishops on the Christian side, and the Sheikhs and Muftis and Sayyids on the other side. You will suffer a terrible fate for daring to challenge the sway that the criminal monotheistic religions have in a country like Lebanon.
But then again, according to our professor friend jcn, nowhere in the Lebanese constitution does it say that you cannot legally be Lebanese practitioner of Buddhism. Therefore, according to jcn's logic, Lebanon - by default, not by positive will, and on paper - is tolerant of Buddhism, even though jcn knows that in practice, Lebanon is a monotheistic religious Mafia cesspool that works hard to exclude anyone else that might steal people from their flocks.
And to the extent that Buddhism, should it rise to challenge the status quo, is a potential threat to the Maronites, the Sunnis, the Orthodox, the Shiites and the Druze.... an "unfortunate accident" will happen to you that will inevitably be attributed to "Israeli agents" or "Zionist plotters" or "imperialist conspirators".... We know the song.
Hanibaal
Post a Comment