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.