Is nabih berri finished?

mariob2

mariob2

Member
When Berri is calling for an electoral law with Lebanon as one district and not sectarian, dont you see that those opposed to such a step are the ones against the implementation of Taef?

@SeaAb Tfaddal...if civil marriage is not part of the Taef accord, why start up a new condition or rule or demand to fully implement Taef and abolish the confessional system? Why are you clutching at straws and finding excuses? and you keep telling me Berri is the problem? Who in Lebanon and in govt that is not a problem or an impediment, including you?
Berri's invocation of such a law is a deceitful act versed in order to portray himself as a ruler that, in appearance, tries to combat sectarianism while he, in truth, basks and revels in it.

Lebanon as one district does not take into account the the dispersion of the different religious communities. Similarly to Switzerland, where it is a federal State that took into account the diveristy of the nationalities/ethnicities in it, Lebanon must similarly proceed but instead of ethnicities we have sects.

Federalism is the best way. It does not have any drawbacks while also respecting the right of minorities. In a sense, the Senate that Taef established represents"the head of the main religious families".

Thus, Lebanon as one district, which would allow for Christians to vote for their Druze or Muslim deputy, or the Muslim/Druze to vote for their own Christian deputy, will upset, and I hate to advocate for it, the delicate sectarian status quo Lebanon bled to balance. In a sense, Lebanon as one district is sectarian in and of itself.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Steven Gerrard

    Steven Gerrard

    New Member
    Berri's invocation of such a law is a deceitful act versed in order to portray himself as a ruler that, in appearance, tries to combat sectarianism while he, in truth, basks and revels in it.

    Lebanon as one district does not take into account the the dispersion of the different religious communities. Similarly to Switzerland, where it is a federal State that took into account the diveristy of the nationalities/ethnicities in it, Lebanon must similarly proceed but instead of ethnicities we have sects.

    Federalism is the best way. It does not have any drawbacks while also respecting the right of minorities. In a sense, the Senate that Taef established represents"the head of the main religious families".

    Thus, Lebanon as one district, which would allow for Christians to vote for their Druze or Muslim deputy, or the Muslim/Druze to vote for their own Christian deputy, will upset, and I hate to advocate for it, the delicate sectarian status quo Lebanon bled to balance. In a sense, Lebanon as one district is sectarian in and of itself.
    If people don't like to call it federalism then call it decentralization, allow municipalities to make decisions for the well being of the community not the state.

    I disagree with sectarian federalism dividing regions based on sects. However I agree with geographical federalism/decentralization.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Berri's invocation of such a law is a deceitful act versed in order to portray himself as a ruler that, in appearance, tries to combat sectarianism while he, in truth, basks and revels in it.

    Lebanon as one district does not take into account the the dispersion of the different religious communities. Similarly to Switzerland, where it is a federal State that took into account the diveristy of the nationalities/ethnicities in it, Lebanon must similarly proceed but instead of ethnicities we have sects.

    Federalism is the best way. It does not have any drawbacks while also respecting the right of minorities. In a sense, the Senate that Taef established represents"the head of the main religious families".

    Thus, Lebanon as one district, which would allow for Christians to vote for their Druze or Muslim deputy, or the Muslim/Druze to vote for their own Christian deputy, will upset, and I hate to advocate for it, the delicate sectarian status quo Lebanon bled to balance. In a sense, Lebanon as one district is sectarian in and of itself.
    Yes, it is a good thing if an electoral law that collectively portray Lebanon as one upsets the sectarian balance. That is a good thing in and of itself. The Taef accord stipulates a non sectarian parliament through a non sectarian and abolishing the confessional system. There would be a sectarian Senate, as the house of chiefs. The full implem6of Taef has to take place sooner than later.

    The MP is supposed to represent the nation in parliament. And should be held accountable by the nation. The moment he becomes a sectarian MP representing a small area, other voices within that area gets silenced, and big parties trample upon those voices. The MP becomes a voice or division and not a voice working for the good of the entire country. The reason we are in this mess, with everyone drawing the rope from different direction.

    I am not ready for federalism and I wont support it and I will fight against it even if it means to get you back to your senses. Not when you like you impose on us a confessional system and when you like you want to impose on us federalism. The confessional system treated us as second class citizens in our country until Taef crippled it. A federal system is aimed at again making other Lebanese feel as second class citizens in one area to another. Ypi have to be ready to live in a country as any other ordinary citizen without any special privileges. We are not going to be treated as second class citizens in areas you form a majority and we do not want to treat you as second class citizens in the many areas we form a majority. We want one country for everyone under one law and under a state where all citizens are coequal. That special treatment you always crave to impose because you belong to a certain religious group has to pave way some time soon for a normal state where all citizens are special. This goes to show, with your calls for federalism (which by the way is a recipe for civil war) that you do not intend to build a modern state and you always want to have a divided country along sectarian lines and empowerment. If you do not like the idea of equality, citizenship and fair treatment for all, then you are evidently trying to ignite another civil war. And no foreign power, not even the US with all its Marines can impose anything on the Lebanese. Nothing ever imposed from the outside has ever succeeded in Lebanon. We are too stubborn as a people to have anything imposed on us. When Fairouz sang and called us "Sha3eb el 3anid", she's righr. We dont have to repeat the past and go through hell all over again because some people arent content with equality. Berri isnt going to last forever and none of us will, in case your reply is going to use Berri as the bogeyman.

    "When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression".
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    If people don't like to call it federalism then call it decentralization, allow municipalities to make decisions for the well being of the community not the state.

    I disagree with sectarian federalism dividing regions based on sects. However I agree with geographical federalism/decentralization.
    Let us assume at the state level all is well and the grass is green. We would be still suck with the same problems at the federal level along with power sharing and federal state finances.
    Federalism is not a solution as it does not really shield people at the state level. It is basically adding a lower level of governance yet the problems with electricity, waste, water, defense, agriculture, food safety .... will all need a higher level of governance and in short nothing will change.

    Those who think federalism = having their own country ... do not understand what federalism is.
     
    Steven Gerrard

    Steven Gerrard

    New Member
    Let us assume at the state level all is well and the grass is green. We would be still suck with the same problems at the federal level along with power sharing and federal state finances.
    Federalism is not a solution as it does not really shield people at the state level. It is basically adding a lower level of governance yet the problems with electricity, waste, water, defense, agriculture, food safety .... will all need a higher level of governance and in short nothing will change.

    Those who think federalism = having their own country ... do not understand what federalism is.
    I agree with your point that federalism is not = to division, especially based on sects. It's frankly ridiculous, stupid and extreme.

    You don't need higher level of governance on state level when you allow Cantons/municipalities to make decisions. You are actually diffusing power to allow multiple bodies (geographical mo7afazat) to be autonomous in decision making on basic needs such as infrastructure. It makes things easier and it is less bureaucratic than to wait for decisions from the top. In addition, People like Berri, Hariri and Joumblatt want maximum out of a central state, it is a bigger pie for them and more money to steal, so by diversifying and diffusing power you are stripping away their ability to steal on state level, instead they turn to their mo2ata3a and try to steal from there. Then those communities will realize that they've been laughed at for so long they would vote them out in the next elections.

    Why do you think Hariri and Berri are against this? because their pie would become smaller.
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Berri won't die. He will live until Judgment Day. He has an army of thugs that is ready to not only burn the country for his sake, but also collaborate with Israel if he asks them too. Same with Jumblatt and Geagea.

    Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk
     
    HalaMadrid

    HalaMadrid

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I agree with your point that federalism is not = to division, especially based on sects. It's frankly ridiculous, stupid and extreme.

    You don't need higher level of governance on state level when you allow Cantons/municipalities to make decisions. You are actually diffusing power to allow multiple bodies (geographical mo7afazat) to be autonomous in decision making on basic needs such as infrastructure. It makes things easier and it is less bureaucratic than to wait for decisions from the top. In addition, People like Berri, Hariri and Joumblatt want maximum out of a central state, it is a bigger pie for them and more money to steal, so by diversifying and diffusing power you are stripping away their ability to steal on state level, instead they turn to their mo2ata3a and try to steal from there. Then those communities will realize that they've been laughed at for so long they would vote them out in the next elections.

    Why do you think Hariri and Berri are against this? because their pie would become smaller.
    The underlying assumption for this scenario to be true is a functioning non-corrupt federal government. No matter which way you turn it, nothing changes unless you clean house at the state level otherwise federalism, decentralization, localism, whatever you wanna call it is a race to the bottomest dredges of just how little localities can do for their constituents.
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    Berri won't die. He will live until Judgment Day. He has an army of thugs that is ready to not only burn the country for his sake, but also collaborate with Israel if he asks them too. Same with Jumblatt and Geagea.

    Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk
    i think he will personally bring and supervise judgement day, mamnou3 el ghalat
     
    SAVO

    SAVO

    Member
    instead of speculating .. u must ask about what is the material relation that link HA to Berri .
    and in the balance of cost- benefit for HA to keep Berri or get rid of him ..
    who do berri rappresent among the shiite compared to HA ( wealthy shiite , secular shiite , pro syrian shiite , followers of iraqui najaf shiite ..)
    which groups of shiite do berri rappresnt ( resident vs emigrants ) .

    what is the nature of Berri power and the events that market his political life ( heredity of mussa sadr , 6 february intifada against amin gemayel and the split of the army , the war camps against palestinians , the war against comunist shia , the war against HA )
    the position of Berri in the syrian equation of lebanon during the wissaye era ..
    the equation that put berri in his position after taef accord ( saudi - syrian - USA agreement )
    the israeli position toward Berri .

    lot of question but answeing them will give some clues about the backstage of this infernal game .

    unless if god exist and can reclaim his life , or corona virus could lend god a hand in this mission ...there is no way out from answering those questions . and there another question to ask .. what about the shia after Berri ? will hizbollah be able to control the whole sect on the iranian model ( conservative vs reformist ) or ..
    one thing is sure.. amal after berri will not exist anymore ..
     
    Last edited:
    Steven Gerrard

    Steven Gerrard

    New Member
    The underlying assumption for this scenario to be true is a functioning non-corrupt federal government. No matter which way you turn it, nothing changes unless you clean house at the state level otherwise federalism, decentralization, localism, whatever you wanna call it is a race to the bottomest dredges of just how little localities can do for their constituents.
    I agree to disagree. No matter what we will do, even if we decide to go again with the top-down approach we will face corruption and a ton of bureaucracy. A non corrupt federal government will happen if we decide to diffuse the power to local regions because local regions will filter out corruption. Better to give power to communities rather than incompetent corrupt politicians.
     
    NAFAR

    NAFAR

    Legendary Member
    instead of speculating .. u must ask about what is the material relation that link HA to Berri .
    and in the balance of cost- benefit for HA to keep Berri or get rid of him ..
    who do berri rappresent among the shiite compared to HA ( wealthy shiite , secular shiite , pro syrian shiite , followers of iraqui najaf shiite ..)
    which groups of shiite do berri rappresnt ( resident vs emigrants ) .

    what is the nature of Berri power and the events that market his political life ( heredity of mussa sadr , 6 february intifada against amin gemayel and the split of the army , the war camps against palestinians , the war against comunist shia , the war against HA )
    the position of Berri in the syrian equation of lebanon during the wissaye era ..
    the equation that put berri in his position after taef accord ( saudi - syrian - USA agreement )
    the israeli position toward Berri .

    lot of question but answeing them will give some clues about the backstage of this infernal game .

    unless if god exist and can reclaim his life , or corona virus could lend god a hand in this mission ...there is no way out from answering those questions . and there another question to ask .. what about the shia after Berri ? will hizbollah be able to control the whole sect on the iranian model ( conservative vs reformist ) or ..
    one thing is sure.. amal after berri will not exist anymore ..
    Well I was discussing the same topic today with one shiite freind.
    I told him you guys have to break this viscous circle and get out of the war era and Amal militia legacy....shiites should have a new national liberal non-islamic party......Abbas Ibrahim is a state figure who can lead such movement.
    I mean it is really sad to see that the best shiite can have as a supreme leader for life is the crook warlord Berri.
    I told him also that HA on the long term can't survive and its current form..........he admit it to be true.
     
    mike89

    mike89

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I think we are all focusing on only one side of it. The other side that people love to keep out of the discussion is the fact that it's the people of Lebanon that are voting for their parties. People call on "corruption" as a ghost. No its not. Your own vote and thinking gets u these politicians.

    In this special case, rafidi defends berri. Which is in line with the voting behavior of the people. So nothing new.

    And as long as nothing new happens, Lebanon will always have such politicians, which means such a state and its corruption. No matter the law, no matter the government, no matter the system.

    Change has to begin in the heads of the people, first and foremost. Everything else will follow.
     
    mariob2

    mariob2

    Member
    Yes, it is a good thing if an electoral law that collectively portray Lebanon as one upsets the sectarian balance. That is a good thing in and of itself. The Taef accord stipulates a non sectarian parliament through a non sectarian and abolishing the confessional system. There would be a sectarian Senate, as the house of chiefs. The full implem6of Taef has to take place sooner than later.

    The MP is supposed to represent the nation in parliament. And should be held accountable by the nation. The moment he becomes a sectarian MP representing a small area, other voices within that area gets silenced, and big parties trample upon those voices. The MP becomes a voice or division and not a voice working for the good of the entire country. The reason we are in this mess, with everyone drawing the rope from different direction.

    I am not ready for federalism and I wont support it and I will fight against it even if it means to get you back to your senses. Not when you like you impose on us a confessional system and when you like you want to impose on us federalism. The confessional system treated us as second class citizens in our country until Taef crippled it. A federal system is aimed at again making other Lebanese feel as second class citizens in one area to another. Ypi have to be ready to live in a country as any other ordinary citizen without any special privileges. We are not going to be treated as second class citizens in areas you form a majority and we do not want to treat you as second class citizens in the many areas we form a majority. We want one country for everyone under one law and under a state where all citizens are coequal. That special treatment you always crave to impose because you belong to a certain religious group has to pave way some time soon for a normal state where all citizens are special. This goes to show, with your calls for federalism (which by the way is a recipe for civil war) that you do not intend to build a modern state and you always want to have a divided country along sectarian lines and empowerment. If you do not like the idea of equality, citizenship and fair treatment for all, then you are evidently trying to ignite another civil war. And no foreign power, not even the US with all its Marines can impose anything on the Lebanese. Nothing ever imposed from the outside has ever succeeded in Lebanon. We are too stubborn as a people to have anything imposed on us. When Fairouz sang and called us "Sha3eb el 3anid", she's righr. We dont have to repeat the past and go through hell all over again because some people arent content with equality. Berri isnt going to last forever and none of us will, in case your reply is going to use Berri as the bogeyman.

    "When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression".
    Federalism diffuses power. It does not make second class citizens because they will be represented in the Parliament and the States will represented in the Senate.

    Federalism has no drawbacks. It forces you to netter govern on a local scale.

    Your fears of second class citizenship and fearmongering of a potential civil war are misguided and misplaced. Whether you would live in Tripoli, Zahle, Nabatieh, Jounieh or Kornet l Sawda, you would be treated equally because the federal law protects you. Federal law = a unified civil code.

    Your fears are ill-founded because you are talking through a sectarian perspective. Federalism is not sectarian. On the very contrary, it protects the rights of minorities, whether ethnicities or religions or communities. HOW THE HELL IS IT SECTARIAN?!

    "Recipe for civil war" : USA, Switzerland, Germany are prime examples of succesful democracies, each respectively taking into account the considerations of communities, ethnicities and religion. Don't sow doubt and deceit when it is yourself that is deceitfully blinded by your lack of research.

    Look up the subject of federalism.

    And I'll level with you on Taif : it mandates a Bicameral Parliament (Senate and Deputies), each representing the Sects and the Citizens. (Parallel with USA (states vs citizens), Switzerland (ethnicity vs citizens), Germany (religion vs. Citizens). Furthermore, we are administratively divided along regions, each having a governor (somewhat akin to FEDERALISM).

    HOWEVER, even with the advent of the 3rd Republic, we WOULD NOT have decentralization which means local and administrative management. You wouldn't get to hold your municipality and governor responsible for not cleaning the waste or fixing the pothole on the street, because of the current system of diluting responsability through a CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT THAT TAIF IS STILL BASED UPON.

    Decentralization is indirectly in the Constitution through the "equal development of the regions" clause. But Berri and co. interpret things as they wish. And as long as decentralization is never implemented, you and I will forever REMAIN SECOND CLASS CITIZENS.

    However you look at it, Taif + Decentralization = (hidden) Federalism = minorities protected = everyone happy = everyone under rule of law. (OH AND NO STATE WITHIN A STATE)
    Taif alone = Central government, Divided parliament, no accountability. Why? Because who said those in the Senate won't be aligned with the Deputies? Collusion and conflicts of interest are OBVIOUS. The only way to guarantee that your local muslim and christian and hindu etc... will not think along sectarian lines is when you force him to think regionally/federally.

    Taif IS SECTARIAN. Federalism isn't.

    I'm talking as an independant citizen that doesn't give a rat's ass if you worship Allah, Zeus or a rock but I'm trying to appease your sectarian fears with a form of government that PROTECTS YOU and ASSURES EQUALITY. But nooooo, you spit at local, fiscal and regional autonomy because you believe that Shiite in Jbeil or that Christian in Sour will be a second class citizen, discriminated by his fellow citizens on the grounds of ... WHAT? RACE? RELIGION? When in reality, both citizens are ultimately under the rule of the same federal law, (the federal republic of lebanon) and in the end, if anything, this would give regions a say and vote in matters, such as Akkar or Khiyam.

    Abolishment of Sectarianism, Clientalism. Dawn of Tolerance, Regional Cooperation. You know why? Because it is not FOUNDED ON A SECTARIAN MENTALITY.

    Educate yourself. I hope you will be freed from your sectarian culture and be enlightened to think rationally.
     
    mariob2

    mariob2

    Member
    If people don't like to call it federalism then call it decentralization, allow municipalities to make decisions for the well being of the community not the state.

    I disagree with sectarian federalism dividing regions based on sects. However I agree with geographical federalism/decentralization.
    I disagree with federalism divided along sects as well. In fact, what why not just elevate the regions as they are currently administratively divided into federated states? You litterally wouldn't change anything except the form of governance.
     
    Steven Gerrard

    Steven Gerrard

    New Member
    I disagree with federalism divided along sects as well. In fact, what why not just elevate the regions as they are currently administratively divided into federated states? You litterally wouldn't change anything except the form of governance.
    I agree

    look at Bcharre and coronavirus for example. municipality took charge and made the decisions and now they are coronavirus free.

    I don't get why people are afraid of smaller government and diffusing power to local states.
     
    Top