Secularism

Michel Aoun suggested that secularism is the solution to Lebanon's trouble. Using the word "secularism" for propaganda is quite ugly.

Aoun knows very well that "secularism" in Lebanon is not a simple thing. In the same way that "democracy" in Iraq is not a simple thing, as we have seen. You can not parachute a concept from the West into the East.

Actually, Lebanon is secular to some extent. We have to distinguish between two distinct facets of secularism:

1) Separation of Religion and State.
2) Affirmative action.

The first point is already quite established in Lebanon. The religious order does not usually impose laws (unlike in Iran, for example). Reasonably non-religious parliament and government manage the country. Certain aspects are handled specifically by each religion as long as other religions are relatively unaffected. No one is enforcing wearing the cross or the veil. So the issue in Lebanon is not about separation of religion and state. Iran has such an issue.

The second point, affirmative action, is a system of quotas to protect minorities, or more precisely in Lebanon's case, to give some minimum guarantees to various faiths.

So when we discuss secularism in Lebanon, we are actually referring to the system of quotas. Obviously, the need for any system of quotas reflects deep rooted problems in society. But quotas continue to be used by nations around the globe as a starting point for resolving the deep rooted problems. In the USA, affirmative action is used to help women and African-Americans obtain more access to universities. France is considering a similar system to help immigrants who did not get a fair chance while growing up.

In Lebanon, affirmative action subdivides government and administration positions between various religious groups. Each sect has access to a somewhat fair share of positions in the administration. Without affirmative action it is possible that certain sects take over a much larger number of positions than they deserve. Merit is easily replaced by religious or group affiliation. Hence, from a scientific point of view, affirmative action attempts to reduce group biases that naturally occur in society by reserving for each group a number of positions proportional to the size of the group. And the generally valid assumption is that each group will produce a proportionately number of worthy people to hold the positions. Affirmative action encourages diversity that is otherwise diminished by the rule of the strongest.

Affirmative action, among other things, allows the Christians to retain a certain Western educational model, while the Muslims can follow an Eastern model. No sect imposes its preferred model onto another sect. Slowly, and with the advent of the computer/internet age, all sects are converging to the most progressive educational model, anyway. The education aspect is in the process of being resolved without dispute.

But abandoning affirmative action altogether and promptly is dangerous. Religious and ethnic fervor is still running very strong in Lebanon. With the state of things today, it is unlikely a Sunni votes for a Shiite.

Without some amount of affirmative action, larger religions and ethnic groups will suffocate smaller ones. Affirmative action is one temporary solution. But it should be complemented with measures to gradually diffuse religious and ethnic passions. Once religion stops occupying a sacred place in society, once people start worrying more about education, work, health, etc., and less about churches and mosques, only then we can entirely abolish the affirmative action facet of secularism, like in Western nations.

And more importantly, before we can speak of full secularism, true political parties have to emerge and that obey one golden and one silver rules:

1) Genuinely democratic parties that do not revolve around one strong leader. Sheep mentality is a recipe for disaster. Diversity of thought is extremely important.

2) Parties with universal ideologies (not based on particular faiths with no scientific foundation), and with followers from a broad spectrum of religions.

One can counter with the example of Turkey: why is it that Turkey is at the same time a nation of the East and fully secular? The answer is simple: separation of religion and state occurred in Turkey just like in Lebanon many decades ago (it happened via dictatorship in Turkey). Affirmative action, on the other hand, is less needed in Turkey because most people are Sunnis anyway, and they crushed certain minorities. Actually, some amount of affirmative action could have helped diffuse the tension with the Kurds.

Entirely removing affirmative action from the Lebanese system today will result in some religions overwhelming other religions, and then either to civil war or to massive emigration of the losers. The same applies to Iraq: if no political and administrative positions are pre-allocated to the Sunnis, there will not be peace.

Dictatorship with closed borders is an alternative. Perhaps this is Aoun's dream.

"We will sacrifice ourselves for you, Nasrallah"

I don't hear anyone in Israel shouting "we will sacrifice ourselves for you, Olmert."
Or Sharon, or Golda Meir.

I don't hear anyone in the USA shouting "we will sacrifice ourselves for you, Bush."
Or Kennedy or Washington.

No French citizens sacrificing themselves for Sarkozy, Chirac or De Gaulle.
No Germans sacrificing themselves for Merkel (maybe 60 years ago for Hitler, but we are in 2007, for God's sake!)

Anyone in Venezuela making such generous offerings to Chavez? Unlikely.

So what is this phenomenon in Arabia, especially in Lebanon, where people offer their soul or blood to some leader?

Most of them are not honest and will chicken out and run away at the first sign of trouble. But bizarrely, some of them do take things too literally. Typically they overreact during a political showdown with fellow citizens who offered their souls and bodies to opponent leaders. Things can get nasty, and sometimes they don't waste the chance to fulfill their promise to the darling leader.

In my humble opinion, this sort of chants is not a sign of what the world sees as a modern civilization. No one should be sacrificing their lives for no one else, especially not for crooked leaders. And we all know that ALL politicians are crooked. Note: beware if they are simultaneously political and spiritual leaders. This category tends to be doubly crooked.

QUESTIONS:
Will Nasrallah sacrifice himself for you? Where was he hiding in summer of 2006?
Who did Aoun sacrifice in 1990? Himself or yourself?

MORAL OF THE STORY:
My dear Lebanese people, stop chanting stupid slogans! Get a life.

Gauche Caviar

According to an article published in the French editorial Le Monde Diplomatique,

http://mondediplo.com/2007/04/02lebanon,

the UN's international tribunal to prosecute the killers of Rafik Hariri is illegal.

But the article is a bit of a reminder of the French left that hates anything American. There is good reason to hate many things American but some of these French have made it their darling obsession. And since the international tribunal is endorsed by the Americans and the French right, therefore there must be something cooked up.

I find it hard to believe that the UN's abundant lawyers and experts, many of whom aren't American or French, missed the point that the editors of this article are trying to make.

I find it even harder to believe that the murder of the prominent political figure Rafik Hariri, that happened while the Syrian army occupied Lebanon, should not be prosecuted by the UN. Can the Lebanese government effectively prosecute Syrian president Hafez Assad if it turns out he commanded the murder?

Yet one more thing hard to believe: the murder of Hariri has triggered a series of events that may unleash a civil war in Lebanon, thereby endangering the lives of millions of people. Such a civil war can spread to other areas in the Middle East. Isn't that a sufficient threat to humanity, justifying the involvement of the UN?

The events that followed the assassination were predictable to some extent and the UN acted quickly. For once, the UN is not leaving the state of affair deteriorate to a point of no return before it takes action.

About 20 more political figures were murdered in Lebanon since then (and many more before then). Many terrorist acts and threats against civilians, while the Lebanese people and government are watching helplessly. When should the UN get involved?

Syria occupied Lebanon for decades and nearly annexed the country. The Lebanese people widely believe that Syria is behind the murder of a myriad of Lebanese politicians and journalists. No Lebanese tribunal has ever managed to prosecute Syrian leaders. Without a UN tribunal, Lebanon will continue to be the hostage of its neighbor's mood.

The French left should stop eating caviar for a minute, forget their obsession with America, and take a new objective look at the situation in the Middle East. David, Jesus and Muhammad existed before America.