Federalism: Pros and Cons

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
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 fact is that even with a smaller central government, you're going to have regional and international interference through the Lebanese sectarian puppets. The same issues you have now will come up again come decision making time.

As for the regional governments, if the current political class stays in power, they will simply eat the taxes and wealth of the regions. Like they ate and are still eating Lebanon's wealth today.
 

JB81

Legendary Member
The fact is that even with a smaller central government, you're going to have regional and international interference through the Lebanese sectarian puppets. The same issues you have now will come up again come decision making time.

As for the regional governments, if the current political class stays in power, they will simply eat the taxes and wealth of the regions. Like they ate and are still eating Lebanon's wealth today.

Unfortunately this is the political class of today. However having people a direct voice in which the small districts allow, may change some facts.

The more people are giving a direct voice the more changes one can expect. Eben Batroun won't smashed by eben Tripoli.

If eben Batroun is getting his taxes spent in his caza for his own benefits, who cares if Lebanon is with Saudi Arabia or Iran (exaggerated ) but to some extent, he won't be effected greatly as his local government is serving him
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Unfortunately this is the political class of today. However having people a direct voice in which the small districts allow, may change some facts.

The more people are giving a direct voice the more changes one can expect. Eben Batroun won't smashed by eben Tripoli

Sure, on small things at least, maybe some positives can come out of it. I'll give you that :) Still, much more is needed to "fix" Lebanon. But, as I said, that is not likely to happen anytime soon.
 

Bandar

Well-Known Member
Orange Room Supporter
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.

@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.

I don't know why you keep bringing Christians into it...east Beirut is demographically and geographically linked to Mt. Lebanon, and the people there would want to be a part of the Christian canton.

And again, your argument in Dahye can easily be applied to every other canton...why not create an Alawite canton in the middle of Tripoli as well, and a Shia one in Mt. Lebanon? A Sunni one in the edge of Bekaa?

You say that it's not the same because the majority of the Lebanese population (it's actually around half, 2 million people) live in the greater Beirut area...do you know what the greater Beirut area is?

A3cLIMM.jpg


This is a map of greater Beirut. I have marked in red, very roughly, the Christian part which would be subsumed into the Christian canton. What you have left of Beirut after that is western Beirut and southern Beirut. Half of the Sunnis live in western Beirut. That's a big part of why it is that populated in the first place. If you think the proportion of Shia to Sunni in this area is equal enough to grant a new canton then, like I said, the same logic leads to more exclaves in other cantons, such as a Shia one in Mt. Lebanon.
 

Bandar

Well-Known Member
Orange Room Supporter
Bandar wants Beirut to be exclusive for Sunnis while we're trying to make it a capital for all Lebanese

No, you want to deny a clear majority in a geographically contiguous area a canton because it happens to be Sunni. If the capital of Lebanon was Jbeil, you would not accept a contiguous majority Christian area to be broken into three cantons because of Sunni and Shia minorities.
 

Placebo

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
I don't understand why the big paranoia against Federalism. It's not like the country will be divided with walls or anything.

The swiss, and the germans, are much much more united than us. They have a deeper understanding of their identity and yet they've chosen to go with a federal system

Geographically, lebanon is not more difficult than switzerland ( a landlocked country). We could easily have the different cantons and they don't even have to be linked. Jezzine for instance, could be politically part of Mount lebanon (it is technically still in mount lebanon), without being geographically connected to it. Same applies to small towns and villages that are at the extremeties (and for the different sects, rachaya could be part Aley/Chouf)

Please check the canton map of switzerland and stop using the geographic argument anymore.


The exceptional cases where some villages are mixed, well they would have to live with the new reality (it's not like we don't have a federal system in place, we actually are almost federalised but in a non-organized and official way) as long as the basic rights are respected.


siwsscantons.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DLT

Placebo

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
I don't know why you keep bringing Christians into it...east Beirut is demographically and geographically linked to Mt. Lebanon, and the people there would want to be a part of the Christian canton.

And again, your argument in Dahye can easily be applied to every other canton...why not create an Alawite canton in the middle of Tripoli as well, and a Shia one in Mt. Lebanon? A Sunni one in the edge of Bekaa?

You say that it's not the same because the majority of the Lebanese population (it's actually around half, 2 million people) live in the greater Beirut area...do you know what the greater Beirut area is?

A3cLIMM.jpg


This is a map of greater Beirut. I have marked in red, very roughly, the Christian part which would be subsumed into the Christian canton. What you have left of Beirut after that is western Beirut and southern Beirut. Half of the Sunnis live in western Beirut. That's a big part of why it is that populated in the first place. If you think the proportion of Shia to Sunni in this area is equal enough to grant a new canton then, like I said, the same logic leads to more exclaves in other cantons, such as a Shia one in Mt. Lebanon.

you missed achrafieh and saifi with your rough red line, use the first bassin of the port as a reference :p
 

JB81

Legendary Member
No, you want to deny a clear majority in a geographically contiguous area a canton because it happens to be Sunni. If the capital of Lebanon was Jbeil, you would not accept a contiguous majority Christian area to be broken into three cantons because of Sunni and Shia minorities.

Are you comparing the Sunni population of jbeil with Christians and Shiites in Beirut? Where do you live?

Plus, we're trying to find solution for sects to rule themselves. Here you contradict yourself as you want Sunnis to dominate Shiites.

Beirut as a canton... 3 municipalities. One Sunni one Shiite one Christian. And downtown Beirut se7et nejmeh undercontrol of the central government as DC is.

This way Beirut looks as the capital of all instead of regarding it as a Sunni sectarian city
 
Last edited:

Bandar

Well-Known Member
Orange Room Supporter
Are you comparing the Sunni population of jbeil with Christians and Shiites in Beirut? Where do you live?

Plus, we're trying to find solution for sects to rule themselves. Here you contradict yourself as you want Sunnis to dominate Shiites.

Beirut as a canton... 3 municipalities. One Sunni one Shiite one Christian. And downtown Beirut se7et nejmeh undercontrol of the central government as DC is.

1. Saida as a part of which canton? South? "Shiites to dominate Sunnis" in your words?

2. Why cut east Beirut from the Christian canton, likely against the will of the people there? Why do you and Indie keep trying to shoehorn Christian into the question when it is obvious they would join the Christian canton? Is it possibly to erode the clear majority of the Beirut -> Saida shoreline, when east Beirut is no longer in the equation?

3. You just said I'm trying to prevent Beirut as a capital for all Lebanese..and now you're talking to me about se7et nejmeh as DC? Which one is it?
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
I don't know why you keep bringing Christians into it...east Beirut is demographically and geographically linked to Mt. Lebanon, and the people there would want to be a part of the Christian canton.

And again, your argument in Dahye can easily be applied to every other canton...why not create an Alawite canton in the middle of Tripoli as well, and a Shia one in Mt. Lebanon? A Sunni one in the edge of Bekaa?

You say that it's not the same because the majority of the Lebanese population (it's actually around half, 2 million people) live in the greater Beirut area...do you know what the greater Beirut area is?

A3cLIMM.jpg


This is a map of greater Beirut. I have marked in red, very roughly, the Christian part which would be subsumed into the Christian canton. What you have left of Beirut after that is western Beirut and southern Beirut. Half of the Sunnis live in western Beirut. That's a big part of why it is that populated in the first place. If you think the proportion of Shia to Sunni in this area is equal enough to grant a new canton then, like I said, the same logic leads to more exclaves in other cantons, such as a Shia one in Mt. Lebanon.

Bandar I'm going to repeat this one last time.

Take greater Beirut out of the big cantons. Beirut is its own thing.

All sects get one or two big cantons, PLUS the area of Beirut they already inhabit. So you get a big Saida canton and a big Tripoli canton, PLUS west Beirut. Shias get a big Baalbeck canton and a big Sour canton, PLUS south Beirut. Christians get Mount Lebanon, PLUS east Beirut. It's really not complicated.

Same would apply if Ashrafieh didn't happen to be geographically linked to the bigger Christian canton. Just like south Beirut wouldn't geographically be linked to the bigger Shia cantons.

There is n o discrimination here. So stop comparing the small numbers of people in towns and villages to the number of people living in Dahyeh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DLT

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Huh? do you know the city at all ?

His Hariri took over Saifi so now he thinks it belongs to them.

Anyways, I agree with @JB81, and have said so multiple times before, the whole solidere area should be the central government zone. It's not built for the average Lebanese anyways, except to catch a movie or have a coffee from time to time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DLT

Placebo

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
saifi is the area next to gemayze where all the rich foreign crooks own apartments, isnt it?

you are probably refering to "Saifi village", the small area next to gemmayze.

Saifi (the neighborhood), spans from the port to abdel wahab street, incl. the HQ of the Kataeb, St Maron's church, Rue monot and the jesuits quarter (usj).

iktada el tawdi7.
 

JB81

Legendary Member
1. Saida as a part of which canton? South? "Shiites to dominate Sunnis" in your words?

2. Why cut east Beirut from the Christian canton, likely against the will of the people there? Why do you and Indie keep trying to shoehorn Christian into the question when it is obvious they would join the Christian canton? Is it possibly to erode the clear majority of the Beirut -> Saida shoreline, when east Beirut is no longer in the equation?

3. You just said I'm trying to prevent Beirut as a capital for all Lebanese..and now you're talking to me about se7et nejmeh as DC? Which one is it?

Did you look at the map you draw? Where do you have Saida? Is it dominated by Shiites?

If Beirut is divided into 3 where Christians have their own region, I don't see how a Christian can object such proposal.

Downtown Beirut and other government buildings belong to all Lebanese. They are all running because of a Sunni tax payers as much as a Christian one. Why do you want them exclusive for Sunnis?

Or you can have them if you want to pay for their upkeep and spendings. Actually betkouno mashkourin :D
 
Last edited:

Bandar

Well-Known Member
Orange Room Supporter
His Hariri took over Saifi so now he thinks it belongs to them.

I didn't realize there was an area called Saifi, I thought it was simply the small block near downtown. Funny use of "them" though, ms. secular.

Anyways, I agree with @JB81, and have said so multiple times before, the whole solidere area should be the central government zone. It's not built for the average Lebanese anyways, except to catch a movie or have a coffee from time to time.

It's funny how all your innocent secular stances come with the condition of weakening and negating a certain population of Beirut.
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
I didn't realize there was an area called Saifi, I thought it was simply the small block near downtown. Funny use of "them" though, ms. secular.

It's funny how all your innocent secular stances come with the condition of weakening and negating a certain population of Beirut.

Do I have to repeat one more time that I'm not for federalism, and that I'm simply participating in the non-secular hypothetical scenario that you and others are indulging in? :rolleyes:

And even in this hypothetical scenario, my stances are more fair than yours. You get exactly what everyone else gets, nothing less, nothing more. But as a true Hariri and Saudi follower, unless you become the sole proprietor of what belongs to everyone else, you consider yourself a weakened victim.
 

Bandar

Well-Known Member
Orange Room Supporter
Did you look at the map you draw? Where do you have Saida? Is it dominated by Shiites?

Saida is a Sunni enclave in a Shia dominated region of the country. Do you suggest that this small town have its own canton? Or, in your words, would it be "dominated by Shiites"?

If Beirut is divided into 3 where Christians have their own region, I don't see how a Christian can object such proposal.

It wouldn't make sense to split them like that. Why increase the red tape and make things more complicated? They are the same religion, and next to each other geographically.

Downtown Beirut and other government buildings belong to all Lebanese. They are all running because of a Sunni tax payers as much as a Christian one. Why do you want them exclusive for Sunnis?

Your argument does not follow and you are not understanding what I mean. You just said that you want to turn Beirut into an administrative nightmare (one canton, 3 different regions and governments), for the purpose of having it be the capital for all Lebanese. Then you said that there should be a small independent capital zone similar to DC for the parliament and government buildings. Which one is it?
 
Top