Federalism: Pros and Cons

Robin Hood

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
How about naming the problems that federalism is supposed to fix, and analyse whether or not it actually fixes them. For example, and I bring this up in every topic about federalism...

If Christians have a demographic issue, and are worried about being sidelined by other sects, how does federalism fix this?

There are non Christians living in what would be the Christian canton of a federal Lebanon. Eventually, the demographic issue could come up again within the canton. For example, if Christians continue to emigrate, while non Christians choose to have big families. These non Christian families will surely want to be represented in the Christian cantonal government. So you are right back to square one on this issue, unless you implement strict and discriminatory measures to keep the canton Christian.

Or have a Christian Israel.
 

Robin Hood

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Dahyeh is closer to Christian areas on the east than it is to Saida. There's no reason why it couldn't be part of the Shia canton, either as a canton of its own or related to another one. You have to consider population and not just geography.

You mean as an exclave?
 

Robin Hood

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
How many children do Muslim families have on average?
And there is no religious requirement to wage a demographic war.
 

JB81

Legendary Member
My point is, federalism will not solve the current issues, nor appease people's fears on the long run.

Overall, it may creates more problems than solutions.

I think the best solution is de-centralization. Give more powers to mou7afez (in case of Mou7afaza) or ka2em makam ( in case of cazas). Let most taxation goes local and some to the central government. Papers mou3amalet can be done in cazas capital without going back and forth to Tripoli Saida Beirut...

Cazas for the most part are already divided based on sectarian lines.
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
How many children do Muslim families have on average?

I don't know, but you have people boasting on this forum about Muslims having a lot of kids, about how Christians will disappear, and about nationalizing Syrian refugees.
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Overall, it may creates more problems than solutions.

I think the best solution is de-centralization. Give more powers to mou7afez (in case of Mou7afaza) or ka2em makam ( in case of cazas). Let most taxation goes local and some to the central government. Papers mou3amalet can be done in cazas capital without going back and forth to Tripoli Saida Beirut...

I think the solutions are two-fold, but they are not going to happen any time soon, if ever...

1 - Complete and true secularism

2 - The removal of the current political class
 

JB81

Legendary Member
I think the solutions are two-fold, but they are not going to happen any time soon, if ever...

1 - Complete and true secularism

2 - The removal of the current political class

This is where Lebanon should be now. Complete secular state. But, things are going into the opposite side. Religious extremism are on the rise unfortunately.

So we have to look into reasonable solutions. Federalism is not an option either. The most likely option is de-centralization... a light form of federalism.

A ka2em makam shall be elected from people. His/her pisition will be giving many tasks such as taking care of infrastructure of the cazas for example. This way eben baalbak will be responsible for his roads instead being neglected by the central government as today's situation. Also as Bandar suggested, for instant, Kaem makam baalbak-Hermel may alocate a substantional financial support for agriculture, while Jbeil ka2em makam may be intrested in creating a great tourism industry
 
Last edited:

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
This is where Lebanon should be now. Complete secular state. But, things are going into the opposite side. Religious extremism are on the rise unfortunately.

So we have to look into reasonable solutions. Federalism is not an option either. The most likely option is de-centralization... a light form of federalism.

A ka2em makam shall be elected from people. His/her pisition will be giving many tasks such as taking care of infrastructure of the cazas for example. This way eben baalbak will be responsible for his roads instead being neglected by the central government as today's situation

Maybe if you explain in a more detailed way what would be involved I could comment on it. At this point, I'm not sure if this would help or not.
 

JB81

Legendary Member
Maybe if you explain in a more detailed way what would be involved I could comment on it. At this point, I'm not sure if this would help or not.

Form a local government within a caza with ka2em makam being elected by its own caza to reside over a small cabinet.
Each caza may form their cabinet differently. Kessewen district may not be intrested in an agricultural position in the cabinet, but a position to encourage office businesses. Each district is responsible for its health care system, infrastructure, human and economic development.

There will be two form taxation... one for the District and other for the central government. 80-90% of taxation stays local while the other 10-20% goes for the central government.
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Form a local government within a caza with ka2em makam being elected by its own caza to reside over a small cabinet.
Each caza may form their cabinet differently. Kessewen district may not be intrested in an agricultural position in the cabinet, but a position to encourage office businesses. Each district is responsible for its health care system, infrastructure, human and economic development.

There will be two form taxation... one for the District and other for the central government. 80-90% of taxation stays local while the other 10-20% goes for the central government.

And how will the current political class benefit financially with such a system? Unless they also impose their rule on the new local governments?
 

Bandar

Well-Known Member
Orange Room Supporter
That's exactly what I've been saying.

Mt. Lebanon is already linked to east Beirut, both are Christian areas. I don't see why these two populations should be cut off.

The new capital of the entire federation could be a tiny "Serailles" zone similar to Washington DC, which is its own zone not linked to any canton and simply acts as the seat of national government.

The question is between western and southern Beirut going down to Saida. If you want to create three tiny cantons instead of one because of a Shia minority there, then that precedent would apply to Shia in Mt. Lebanon as well as Sunnis in the Bekaa, and countless other examples.

Some of you are looking at this too much like it is a partition. Shia in Dahye could still vote for whoever they want and be represented in a Sunni majority canton. Their rights would be guaranteed in the new constitution, just like all populations which are a different sect than the majority sect of their respective canton.

The point of federalism is to create a peaceful solution, and that means consensus for the new model. As a person who is more receptive to the idea of federalism than most in my sect, I still would not accept a model that destroys us outside of northern Lebanon. It is not a fair model to give 1 million people 1/3rd of a city as a canton.
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
And how will the current political class benefit financially with such a system? Unless they also impose their rule on the new local governments?

Also, this system won't do much for issues as such foreign policy, border security, terrorist threats, and the sectarianism that blocks solutions to these problems.
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Mt. Lebanon is already linked to east Beirut, both are Christian areas. I don't see why these two populations should be cut off.

The new capital of the entire federation could be a tiny "Serailles" zone similar to Washington DC, which is its own zone not linked to any canton and simply acts as the seat of national government.

The question is between western and southern Beirut going down to Saida. If you want to create three tiny cantons instead of one because of a Shia minority there, then that precedent would apply to Shia in Mt. Lebanon as well as Sunnis in the Bekaa, and countless other examples.

Some of you are looking at this too much like it is a partition. Shia in Dahye could still vote for whoever they want and be represented in a Sunni majority canton. Their rights would be guaranteed in the new constitution, just like all populations which are a different sect than the majority sect of their respective canton.

The point of federalism is to create a peaceful solution, and that means consensus for the new model. As a person who is more receptive to the idea of federalism than most in my sect, I still would not accept a model that destroys us outside of northern Lebanon. It is not a fair model to give 1 million people 1/3rd of a city as a canton.

You are still ignoring the fact that the majority of the Lebanese population is concentrated in the greater Beirut area, so you cannot compare Dahyeh to a small town or village in another area that would happen to be in the "wrong" canton.
 

JB81

Legendary Member
23393"]And how will the current political class benefit financially with such a system? Unless they also impose their rule on the new local governments?[/QUOTE]

Of course, there will be political competition on local regions. Even HA and Amal may clash in Shiites dominated districts.

A ka2em makam in Bshareh may likely be an lfer while FPM in Kesserwen.

This is another way to create small central government. It effects on Lebanese daily life will be minimal.

It's main task is foreign affairs, defense. The Parliament shall take out sectarian quota as long as any constitutional reform needs a unanimous vote. The 1960 law shall remain as the electoral law with adjustment of seats according to population size. There shall be census every 10 years to readjust seats
 
Last edited:

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
@Bandar, I fail to see how giving West Beirut to Sunnis, East Beirut to Christians, and the Southern Suburbs to Shias, is in any way unfair to Sunnis. Why in the world are Sunnis entitled to Dahyeh? They don't live there.
 

JB81

Legendary Member
Bandar wants Beirut to be exclusive for Sunnis while we're trying to make it a capital for all Lebanese
 
Top