"It is easy to bash a serious idea and harder to propose a serious alternative. Mr. Young wrote a facile piece today - "Federalism is not the silver bullet many Lebanese Christians think it is" (thenationalnews.com) - doing just that. There is so much intellectual myopia in the piece one really doesn’t know where to begin dissecting it. For instance, Mr. Young is worried about the economic viability of various cantons should Lebanon turn federal. It doesn’t occur to him that the economy collapsed under the centralized system of governance he is so adamantly clinging to. Is the economy really an argument one can use in defense of the status-quo, and against change? Nor does it occur to him that it is utterly impossible to punish the mafia and reform the current system for a reason obvious to all, except to Mr. Young and his cohort of Jacobin centralizers: the mafia IS the system. And unless the system is radically altered, business will continue as usual. Business, indeed, is continuing as usual since 2019."
**Thank you Mr. Bou Nassif for giving me an opportunity to reply. You are very kind to have written several paragraphs on my article. I would have thought that anything so “facile” would have merited less. If I may respond point by point, which is why I am posting replies under the passages I want to address. My overall impression is that you made some good points, but not one of them actually seems to be related to federalism. Let’s begin with the economy. Your point that the economy collapsed under a centralized system governance is an interesting one, but it is largely irrelevant to our discussion. Federal systems have national economies, as much as they have cantonal or state or provincial economies. Economies can collapse in centralized, decentralized, federal, or confederal systems, so there is nothing specific to the political structure of the Lebanese state that explains our collapse, or that made it inevitable. Nor do I quite get the implication that federal systems are somehow better able withstand economic collapses.
I also fail to understand the accusation that I am adamantly clinging to a centralized system and the status quo. That’s a complete misstatement of my position, all the more so as I am as conscious as anybody about the fact that our system is broken. But I don’t see the problem as one of federalism or no federalism. I see the problem, frankly, as one of contempt by sectarian groups for the rules of our sectarian consociational system. When these rules are transgressed, the consequences can be very dangerous. What I proposed was a break with the status quo, which has been largely characterized in the past 30 years by a very selective implementation of Taif. I suggested a system built around the notion of implementing broad administrative decentralization, which is the opposite of the centralized system to which I and a cohort of Jacobin comrades are allegedly clinging. But even federal systems do not dispense with a central government. Federal authorities normally continue to control national defense and foreign policy, as well as in certain systems the right to make laws, and so on. Powers not specifically granted to the cantonal level often remain in the hands of a federal government. That would leave major issues in the hands of the authorities in Beirut, including issues that you, Mr. Bou Nassif, see as highly problematic, such as national defense and Lebanon’s regional relations.
As for the mention of the mafia, I’m honored Mr. Bou Nassif that you are quoting me to me, as I’m the one who recently wrote an article on that very topic. The mafia is indeed THE system, but what allows us to assume that this mafia will disappear simply because the state has been broken up into cantons? What assures us that the power of the sectarian leaders will not be reinforced as they rule over their flock in sectarian cantonal entities? If you want to radically alter the system Mr. Bou Nassif, I’m with you, but you speak as if “the system” is an abstract idea floating above us in the ionosphere. The “system” is us, and what disgusts you at the national level will certainly be transposed to the cantonal level if a federal system is ever implemented. From our current authoritarian system ruled over by a collection of sectarian demagogues, we will shift to a system where the demagogues will rule over smaller sectarian entities. At least in the current multisectarian order, these leaders can balance each other out, leaving spaces for liberty. This will be more difficult to achieve in more monochromatic cantonal structures.
"Yes, Christians feel estranged in a country that once used to be theirs as Mr. Young correctly notes. His solution? Taef-style administrative decentralization. How does that change the fact that Christians do not feel about Iran the way most Shia do? Or that Christians overall really couldn’t care less about the fate of al-Aqsa mosque like many Muslims do? Or that most Christians still think of Bashir Gemayel as an icon whereas most Shia feel the exact opposite about him? I can go on and on. These are mere examples. The point here is this: there are profound divergences between the Lebanese groups and by extension radically different political choices. How is administrative decentralization a solution? Mr. Young doesn’t bother answering or even mentioning such fundamental issues. Lucky thing he is no doctor. He would have prescribed a painkiller to a patient suffering from cancer."
**I wonder which countries are not characterized by divergences. Look at that great federal entity called the United States, which is being torn apart by culture wars. Everyone has different opinions and makes different choices, and it’s a relief that they do so, otherwise we would be living very boring lives. But, again, what does this have to do with federalism? Because we disagree, we must alter our system and go federal? Do we really want to live in entities where everyone has the same beliefs? Is North Korea the model we want to replicate?
As I noted in my article, federalism has traditionally been adopted to tighten looser confederal ties—less an instrument of separation than of greater unification. That misunderstanding is what bothers me in the federalists’ argument, namely that the anomie caused by a changing environment brought on by demographic changes in Lebanon justifies a radical redrawing of the country. Isn’t such a justification somewhat disturbingly self-centered? I’m not happy, so everyone must accept my alienation and agree to the new order that I demand?
I understand that Christians feel they are a minority in Lebanon, and therefore have no say to oppose choices made by other communal parties. That perception does indeed point to a serious problem in our political system, even if I believe that Christians have a far greater say in the sectarian system than they quite realize. If one militarized party tied to a regional power can embark the entire country in a war, that is intolerable. But will federalism resolve this? I doubt it. What you are truly thinking of Mr. Bou Nassif is more than federalism; you want a divorce from a portion of the population that can decide your fate without asking your opinion. A divorce. Federalism is not about divorce at all, it’s a system of constant collaboration and interaction, which requires commonly accepted rules and a legitimate central structure to oversee this. I don’t think Lebanon has the political culture that would allow us to move toward an efficient federal structure, but I do think that administrative decentralization can be achieved because it is based on established structures, as a test for an as yet unclear future.
But let me protest one statement. You wrote that the country belonged to the Christians. Not that I know of, Mr. Bou Nassif. While the Maronites were essential to the formation of modern Lebanon, by creating a Grand Liban and incorporating Muslim-majority areas in the north, the Beqaa Valley, and the south, the proponents of a Grand Liban sought to integrate Muslims into this new entity. To them, the Mu’tamar al-Sahel of November 1933 was an important moment, because the Sunni leadership sought to persuade the French to grant them equality in the Lebanese state—in other words an equal share in the political and administrative system. This implied, perhaps for the first time, that they saw their future in Lebanon, as opposed to one in a Greater Syria or in a greater Arab nation.
Why do you underestimate the impact of broad administrative decentralization? If people can manage major aspects of their daily life and environment, their energy consumption, their municipal authority, local educational facilities, local investment, and the redistribution of wealth, and so on, without having to run everything through the central authorities, that’s already quite an achievement and creates a level of local accountability that is very valuable. If people want to move toward federalism subsequently, so be it, but let’s test this notion first to see if we can manage even this level of decentralization.
"Mr. Young says that pro-federal impulses do not make federalism more realistic. Then he urges the application of Taef. My question here is simple: Taef has been a dead letter for three decades. Why is it lunacy to think federalism, but it is the epitome of wisdom seemingly to imagine that a sudden resurrection of a defunct agreement is possible? If Taef was viable, why did it die in the first place?"
** Taif is not a dead letter at all, of course, as it is the basis of the system that has ruled us for over three decades. Taif has been selectively implemented, certainly. But let me stop you here. Did you read the article in full? Here is what I wrote: “There is no reason why the Lebanese should not discuss novel political structures – federalism, broad administrative decentralisation, or others – but the real question is what they are seeking to achieve.” To which I later added, “The merit of administrative decentralisation is that it is constitutionally mandated, and could serve as a valuable test for a looser political order. There seems no urgent need to go through a religiously divisive national debate over federalism when a more amenable path exists to address Christian doubts, after which the choice may be more separation, or not.”
I’m not ruling out the possibility of federalism, nor do I see a reason to rule it out. In the end, it’s a political system like any other, and any commonwealth has the right to adopt the system that works best for it. My problem is that there is a belief among federalists that federalism is a panacea for all the issues that disturb them in Lebanon today, and your reply to my article Mr. Bou Nassif proves it, as did some of your comments on the TV program with Albert Kostanian, where you stated the possibility of moving toward partition. Mentally, I think, your deeper urge is to move toward partition, and everything you have stated here points to this. I’m not at all suggesting that you are dishonestly concealing your intentions, but simply that you are undecided yourself about what you ultimately want to see happen.
"Mr. Young seems worried about “Levantine cosmopolitism”. Did that ill-defined ideal protect the survival of the Lebanese Jewish community? We know the answer to that question. Will it ensure the survival of the Lebanese Christians? They are leaving in droves and many of those who remain stuck in the current “Levantine cosmopolitism” that Young is enamored with can’t marry because they can’t afford to. Contra young Shia men who benefit from Iran’s generosity, poor Christians really have nowhere to go to save leaving the country that is. The Christian community is not only shrinking demographically; it is also getting poorer and is more demoralized every day. Against the ongoing existential crisis of Lebanese Christians, pontification about “cosmopolitism” seems quite frankly ridiculous. Did Michael Young read Hazem Saghieh’s latest book on Arab romantics? He should. He, Young, is one of them. Spoiler alert: this is no compliment."
** I’m a romantic because I defend administrative decentralization, as a test for a possible new political structure in Lebanon? Perhaps, but I doubt Byron would have picked up such a topic for one of his poems. I think you’re suffering from an illusion that federalism will prevent Christians from migrating and reverse their demographic decline. Do you really believe that?
As for the fate of the Jews, it had nothing to do with federalism, it was a function of the regional environment and the beginning of the war, when many members of the community left the country. Christians today are leaving (as are many non-Christians) because the country’s economy has collapsed and many people need to work and want their children to grow up in a less unstable environment. This is not about federalism or the absence of federalism, this is about a dysfunctional order that certainly needs to be reformed. I’m not denying that, and never said the contrary. I’m just not persuaded that federalism is the solution because what underlines many Christians’ thinking today is not a desire to create a more functional system, but rather a desire to separate themselves from the system. Under such circumstances, what I see is a situation in which the Christian motivation to collaborate with others in forming a reformed federal political order is nonexistent. You seem to think that federalism is a simple idea, but it’s not. It’s very complex, has to be the fruit of a consensus, involves agreement on complex rules that require cooperation at the national level, while devolving certain powers to the cantonal level. If you think Lebanon has the atmosphere and environment to engage in such a delicate process, I don’t.
A final word on cosmopolitanism. Lebanon still has a strong cosmopolitan streak in it, whatever the lamentations of some. Its communities are still present all over the world and bring to the country many different cultural experiences and influences. Young Lebanese are still better armed than most to travel abroad and succeed in environments different than theirs. Our fractured version of nationalism may indeed have failed to build a solid nation, but nothing is more demoralizing to me than the kind of exclusivist, intolerant nationalism that I see all around me in the world—and that is actually less nationalism than a version of the civilizational, cultural exclusivity the late Samuel Huntington wrote about. As you noted, the country is losing its religious communities, but that is precisely because so many people have the cultural baggage allowing them to settle elsewhere. I deeply regret their departure, but it doesn’t make it less true that this ability to move between cultures is very much part of Lebanon’s vitality. And that can only come from the fact that we continue to interact with each other. The solution is not in federalism, it is in reforming the sectarian order in such a way that we can preserve its pluralism and rules of coexistence, while moving away from our numerous sectarian dictators.