Partitionning Lebanon

Libnene Qu7

Libnene Qu7

Super Ultra Senior Member
Orange Room Supporter
Let me add to that: most tribal leaders have kept their power over the tribes thanks to the Syrian occupation (that needed them back then). Make a 100% democratic country where the state exists and is able to provide basic needs, no one will turn to Murr, Fattouch, Franjieh, etc anymore. And even if the Christian state is weak, i'd rather live in a country ruled by these tribal leaders than live in a country where I can't go to the airport without fearing a non-governmental 7ajez or a bomb on the way, going to the Bekaa without fearing being car-jacked or caught in syrian free army fire, going to the north without fearing terrorists bombing of feeling I'm in Kandahar or Kabboul, etc.

Christians are defacto living in a Christian state, for all these reasons enumerated above...
I only agree with your last statement. In fact, ALL sects are living a defacto federation. Since we've been stuck in this rat race for many decades, let us change for once and head towards unity. You're all acting like we've been united all this time and it's not working.

And the reasons enumerated above are not even close enough to demand a split up. Admit it, even in peaceful times, did you ever go (or even want to go) to the North, Baalbeck, or the South? I'm guilty of this to an extent, by the way. The problems you mentioned are real and they are not minor. But still not enough to grant an official split up. Instead, you should ask for people like Berri, Jumblatt, and Hariri to be investigated and charged for having various judges and security apparatuses under thei control. And Michel Sleiman for being part of this charade.
 
  • Advertisement
  • dodzi

    dodzi

    Legendary Member
    If by federalism we can improve, I'd be the first advocate for an independant Shia state.
    I stopped reading after this. First because I don't have time now immediately, but again, you as all typical Lebanese who know nothing about governance and the functioning of state institutions and democracy (you, Lebanese, including Lebanese politicians and FPMers as well).

    There's nothing in the word Federalism that includes the concept of independence! Flanders, Walloonia, Kansas, Catalonia, the German landers, or the Suiss cantons are hardly independent. They all follow the laws of their superior Federal entities, whether we're talking about the US Constitution, Belgian, German, Suiss or EU laws, regulations or Constitutions!!
     
    JB81

    JB81

    Legendary Member
    You lost me at the capitalized 'bit'. As I had mentioned, and the above 'bit' is proof, partition advocates are brainwashed by a sectarian society and sectarian parents.

    On this earth you got a [email protected] state with certain God loving Christians burying other Christian alive and bombing worshipers in Church. Giving birth to [email protected] number 2 isn't going to be a good experience. You'll get your beautiful state in heaven, just hang in there.
    If not a bit, than what? Did your parents tell you that Christians were evil monsters? don't go to this level.

    This [email protected] is a product of the war that Christians didn't want. It is very natural in a case of war. But most Christians reject him, he have no khebez outside bsharreh. Without Hariri money and media, this guy would've been rot in hell or as they say mazbalet tarikh.

    Christians who used to live under his militia were the first ones to declare loyalty to the state when they had the opportunity with GMA. Jbeil, Kesserwan, Maten, Baabda. And despite Hariri money bribes shipping people from overseas to defeat Aoun in these areas, yet, FPM won all these areas against not only this [email protected] but all other tribal leaders combined. This is just a glimpse example on how Christians may abide their time with reality like under the [email protected], but at the end, they are loyal to the state.

    This loyalty to the state is far from Muslim mind. From beating the electricity collector, to shut down the power all over the state because the astiz baddo yfarfeklo mnekhiro la Bassil, cutting roads, amen zeteh, khatef w ser2a... and the list is long.

    What I said is not sectarianism, it is everyday reality and naming thing as it is does not make someone a sectarian. I'm all for one Lebanon, and GMA had always taught us this :Lebnan akbar men an youbla3 w asghar men an youktassam.
     
    dodzi

    dodzi

    Legendary Member
    Talking about discrimination, I'm sure you've seen this video!

    [VBTUBE]XvIDqgyK8fw[/VBTUBE]

    Religious bigots and sectarian idiots are everywhere! It's not really about who's more sectarian than the other - describing people as more or less sectarian is in itself sectarian! - You either discriminate against people from a different confessional system or you don't! Your religion really doesn't matter here!

    Federalism isn't really a solution to Lebanon's issues! It would be a joke if applied and the country would be in even bigger trouble! What we actually need is a national series of seminars on sectarianism that would allow people to get to know their fellow Lebanese!

    This whole thread took a left turn into a joke of a topic actually! Everyone's so focused on proving how there's no point in talking to others from different sects, claiming they're more sectarian than he is, or insinuating that everyone from his confessional system are beyond reproach while others are what's wrong with our society!

    Edit: You're all educated people, get over your irrational hatred and focus on something that would actually benefit your children and grandchildren!
    Isabella, you're proving my point. As I said, discrimination against Muslims exist. But it's hardly the persecution endured by Christians in the Muslim world...

    Again, you're criticism of Federalism isn't based on facts or knowledge of the principles of governance or democracy at all. You don't understand the system, so I need to ignore you until you learn more about it (at least read my other posts, gosh)!

    Finally, the whole point about bringing up sectarianism isn't off-topic. The only reason anyone would like to partition Lebanon is because of sectarianism, especially Muslim sectarianism! So if you want to talk about something that would benefit our children and grandchildren, please educate me as to how you can combat the religious hatred of Muslims towards Christians (to the point of bombing their schools, attacking their stores, burning their churches and decapitating them if they refuse to convert)?
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    please educate me as to how you can combat the religious hatred of Muslims towards Christians (to the point of bombing their schools, attacking their stores, burning their churches and decapitating them if they refuse to convert)?
    They're doing these things to other Muslims too, not just Christians. You can't put fundamentalists and moderates in the same basket and say "Muslims hate Christians."
     
    dodzi

    dodzi

    Legendary Member
    They're doing these things to other Muslims too, not just Christians. You can't put fundamentalists and moderates in the same basket and say "Muslims hate Christians."
    Agreed, why? Because Shiites are Kuffar, Dajjal, etc. That murderous hate still comes from Muslim fundamentalists.

    In no way my point was to generalize. But Muslim fundamentalism poses an extremely larger threat than Christian fundamentalism (which is mainly against gay rights and abortion).

    In Egypt, a Sunni radical is deposed by a Sunni General. Solution: let's kill the Christians and burn the Shiites.........
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Agreed, why? Because Shiites are Kuffar, Dajjal, etc. That murderous hate still comes from Muslim fundamentalists.

    In no way my point was to generalize. But Muslim fundamentalism poses an extremely larger threat than Christian fundamentalism (which is mainly against gay rights and abortion).
    Majoritarily Christian nations are in the West; hence, they are wealthy, stable, and their populations have access to education and necessities (a lot of it acquired at the expense of others, including Muslims). Fundamentalism isn't attractive to people who live in relative comfort. Think of the neo-Nazi party in Greece which gained in popularity after the economic collapse of that country. And there's a reason why Muslim fundamentalists come, majoritarily, from the poorer segments of society, and why you don't see middle-class and wealthy Muslims blowing themselves up for jihad. You're not thinking about who you want to kill when you're busy acquiring the latest Iphone and decorating your McMansion.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    Isabella, you're proving my point. As I said, discrimination against Muslims exist. But it's hardly the persecution endured by Christians in the Muslim world...

    Again, you're criticism of Federalism isn't based on facts or knowledge of the principles of governance or democracy at all. You don't understand the system, so I need to ignore you until you learn more about it (at least read my other posts, gosh)!

    Finally, the whole point about bringing up sectarianism isn't off-topic. The only reason anyone would like to partition Lebanon is because of sectarianism, especially Muslim sectarianism! So if you want to talk about something that would benefit our children and grandchildren, please educate me as to how you can combat the religious hatred of Muslims towards Christians (to the point of bombing their schools, attacking their stores, burning their churches and decapitating them if they refuse to convert)?
    Minor detail: it's your not you're


    I haven't really checked your other posts but well since you're so interested in federalism and its application in Lebanon and seem to think that this will benefit us greatly, care to explain which version of federalism you'd like to apply? Do you want a weaker central government with more powerful unitary states? Or a stronger central government ?

    What about the constitution? You'd be forced to change that! What about the president? Plus what would the laws in these states be? Would you opt for a more secular form of government vs the one we currently have? Who'd be in charge of making these changes? I mean who do you feel is qualified enough to actually modify the constitution! What powers would the central government hold? Who would be in charge of defense? I'm only bringing this up since Hezbullah has arms and is currently in charge of defense, what would you do in case the south became a unitary state? Who would be in charge of defense then? Keeping in mind of course that the UN won't recognize Lebanon as a sovereign entity unless the central government had full power of its army and foreign policy! What would you do with the Palestinian camps? How would you split the states and what would be their individual constitutions? And based on what? We're generally organised based on sect, so is it a sectarian form of federalism? And what if you opted for the weaker central government, what would you do if Akkar for example made it legal to behead christians based on some fatwa! Muslim extremists seem to be growing in power there anyway!

    And as for your last sentence, the only solution is to educate people on tolerance and the acceptance of others! People beheading others are just brainwashed idiots that have little to no influence on society as a whole!
     
    dodzi

    dodzi

    Legendary Member
    Majoritarily Christian nations are in the West; hence, they are wealthy, stable, and their populations have access to education and necessities (a lot of it acquired at the expense of others, including Muslims). Fundamentalism isn't attractive to people who live in relative comfort. Think of the neo-Nazi party in Greece which gained in popularity after the economic collapse of that country. And there's a reason why Muslim fundamentalists come, majoritarily, from the poorer segments of society, and why you don't see middle-class and wealthy Muslims blowing themselves up for jihad. You're not thinking about who you want to kill when you're busy acquiring the latest Iphone and decorating your McMansion.
    Actually, poverty is not a decisive factor when it comes to terrorism. Most terrorists come from more educated and slightly better off backgrounds, rather than from poorer backgrounds. Remember the 9/11 terrorists? They weren't your average poor individual. As for who finances terrorism, everybody knows where the big fat money comes from!

    Second, when talking about the neonazi party in Greece, religion is not a factor. They are not fighting for Orthodox supremacy, but rather, they are an ultra-nationalist party. Many people will speak about Hitler being a Christian, however, again, he was a racist, which has nothing to do with his religious beliefs. His nationalism was that of race. Moreover, he was believed to be an atheist. He also imprisoned Christians of Jewish origins, even if these people's parents were not even Jewish themselves.

    The West developed because it ultimately considered religion as a private matter, and took science as a more important tool for the development of society.

    Finally, you took some examples of radicalism among Christians, but YOU ARE PROVING MY POINT: their radicalism is in no way as violent as that which we are experiencing in the Muslim world!!!
     
    dodzi

    dodzi

    Legendary Member
    Minor detail: it's your not you're
    Give me a break...




    I haven't really checked your other posts but well since you're so interested in federalism and its application in Lebanon and seem to think that this will benefit us greatly, care to explain which version of federalism you'd like to apply? Do you want a weaker central government with more powerful unitary states? Or a stronger central government ?
    I don't think the matter is relevant. If you do some research on the legal basis for federalism, there are always functions that need to remain at the higher up federal level, and certain functions that are more efficient if local governments govern them:

    • Freedom of expression, religion, press, Human rights, child labor, women rights, etc. are universal rights and issues, and have to be applied nation-wide, and enforced by all entities under the authority of the Federal state
    • Trade regulations and treaties are enforced by Federal governments
    • There can only be one national army. Splitting it is useless
    • Justice and Police: while municipal and regional police are essential, coordination under a Federal structure is important. Just like you have the NYPD, the State Police and the FBI, certain issues are only dealt efficiently if well-coordinated under a larger umbrella
    • Taxes: in order to help fund regional and federal entities, taxes should be split accordingly. This also applies to municipalities that should not wait for the federal/national government to grant them funds. They should be able to fund themselves
    • Infrastructure: roads, railways, public transport, etc., are better managed by smaller entities
    • While certain laws can be applied separately in regional governments, certain regulations need to be applied all over the territory

    Basically, the whole point of Federalism is to give certain regions the chance not to depend overwhelmingly on an incompetent central government. We all know about the Belgian political crises, the US Government Shutdown, etc. Yet although crises emerge, the countries continue to function efficiently thanks to the separation of powers and the federation of powers.

    On other hand, supranational entities are important as well. The EU for instance, regulates on health and safety issues in the food eaten all over the EU. It also regulates in environmental issues, so that one country cannot simply spill all its filth into a river entering another country... That's why Federalism is important

    What about the constitution? You'd be forced to change that! What about the president? Plus what would the laws in these states be? Would you opt for a more secular form of government vs the one we currently have? Who'd be in charge of making these changes? I mean who do you feel is qualified enough to actually modify the constitution! What powers would the central government hold? Who would be in charge of defense? I'm only bringing this up since Hezbullah has arms and is currently in charge of defense, what would you do in case the south became a unitary state? Who would be in charge of defense then? Keeping in mind of course that the UN won't recognize Lebanon as a sovereign entity unless the central government had full power of its army and foreign policy! What would you do with the Palestinian camps? How would you split the states and what would be their individual constitutions? And based on what? We're generally organised based on sect, so is it a sectarian form of federalism? And what if you opted for the weaker central government, what would you do if Akkar for example made it legal to behead christians based on some fatwa! Muslim extremists seem to be growing in power there anyway!

    And as for your last sentence, the only solution is to educate people on tolerance and the acceptance of others! People beheading others are just brainwashed idiots that have little to no influence on society as a whole!

    Regarding the rest, I can't answer all these questions one by one. It'll take me a week! But quickly:

    • The President is ceremonial. The Government (50/50) should be empowered (not the PM) with the Parliament (and Senate?) permission
    • Secularism is key. Just because you are a federation, doesn't mean one region gets to impose Sharia law. Federalism will only redistribute powers of managing certain government services, not rewrite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights! If killing Christians happens in Nigeria, it isn't because the country's constitution is based on Federalism!
    • Defence is the realm of the Federal government (100%)


    Can't but agree with you on the last sentence. Then again, it's easy to assume that all the Syrian opposition are radicals who want to kill all Shiites, Christians, Druze, Alawites and Communists...
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    Give me a break...

    Regarding the rest, I can't answer all these questions one by one. It'll take me a week! But quickly:

    • The President is ceremonial. The Government (50/50) should be empowered (not the PM) with the Parliament (and Senate?) permission
    • Secularism is key. Just because you are a federation, doesn't mean one region gets to impose Sharia law. Federalism will only redistribute powers of managing certain government services, not rewrite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights! If killing Christians happens in Nigeria, it isn't because the country's constitution is based on Federalism!
    • Defence is the realm of the Federal government (100%)


    Can't but agree with you on the last sentence. Then again, it's easy to assume that all the Syrian opposition are radicals who want to kill all Shiites, Christians, Druze, Alawites and Communists...
    Well first off, you actually didn't have a very good counter argument, you assumed ignorance on my part, which is the case of many, and I'm not claiming to be extremely proficient at federalism rules and regulations however I do have a general idea! And the grammar mistake pissed me off even more than you basically calling me an idiot :p!


    Now while I agree that federalism would solve many of the issues we currently have (mainly the crippled government and what it entails ) we're just not at that stage yet! I mean I don't see federalism as a viable solution at least not in the immediate future (in 10 to 20 years maybe!)! Plus before even considering a change to the constitution, there are more urgent matters to solve! Education, healthcare, the rights of women and children, the economy, the Palestinian and the Syrian refugees, SECTARIANISM (it's in caps because it's never been even considered as an issue) just to name a few! I mean we can't even agree on a single national identity, on an objective version of our history, on who's to blame for the civil war, and you want us to split ourselves into states? That would only entail further divisions among the Lebanese, further segregation in some areas (depending on what you'd define as state in your federal Lebanon), and maybe a future civil war because no matter how you draw your states, every single area would have a certain majority and a persecuted minority!

    My issue here isn't with federalism in itself, but with the ignorance in our society! You need to educate people on what a certain change entails before shoving it into their faces! You need a transitional period in which you make a new constitution and regulate the individual constitutions of your unitary states all the while educating people on the importance of being Lebanese! Otherwise, federalism would just destroy our already fragile balance!

    PS: I just quoted the last part of your post not because my answer is necessarily related to it, but because I thought your post was too big to quote
     
    Last edited:
    Big Brother

    Big Brother

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Isabella, federalism and sectarianism are two unrelated ideas. Sectarianism can (and probably will) exist in a federally-structured government, if ever implemented in Lebanon, just like it does in a powerful (yet so powerless) central government as is the case right now. Proposing federalism isn't meant to eliminate sectarianism nor is it meant to draw up states based on sects, it is only meant to reorganize the government so it is not crippled by the growing divisions in the bigger, central government. What does this mean? No, that doesn't mean each state can implement de facto sovereign laws persecuting minorities and violating universal human rights. This means that instead of waiting for the authority of the central government to grant governmental approval for a certain project, say infrastructure-related, the local & state governments can go ahead and start that project on funding they acquire on their own (through taxes etc) and on limited funding (grants) given by the federal government.

    Below is an example of national vs. state powers in the United States. They are not set in stone for all federal governments and can be changed to fit the needs of a certain nation.





    Federalism in Lebanon has a potential to greatly improve certain regions within the country, economically and hence socially. The only drawback would be budgetary concerns. Say Lebanon remains divided into the current five Cazas (five states), a limited budget would lead to sectarian problems. Would Muslim politicians in a state agree to fund projects in Christian areas (and vice versa)? The pros definitely outweigh the cons. The political deadlock on issues such as defense and refugees will remain unaltered.
     
    dodzi

    dodzi

    Legendary Member
    Well first off, you actually didn't have a very good counter argument, you assumed ignorance on my part, which is the case of many, and I'm not claiming to be extremely proficient at federalism rules and regulations however I do have a general idea! And the grammar mistake pissed me off even more than you basically calling me an idiot :p!
    Well, apologies, but it frustrates me when I read some comments that are completely based in lies. I happen to have majored in Political Sciences, I worked in lobbying groups and I follow politics from different countries on a daily basis. When people, especially Lebanese, start dissing at a concept they don't understand, without wanting to understand it (following my several posts on the subject), then it gets a bit annoying... ;)


    Now while I agree that federalism would solve many of the issues we currently have (mainly the crippled government and what it entails ) we're just not at that stage yet! I mean I don't see federalism as a viable solution at least not in the immediate future (in 10 to 20 years maybe!)! Plus before even considering a change to the constitution, there are more urgent matters to solve! Education, healthcare, the rights of women and children, the economy, the Palestinian and the Syrian refugees, SECTARIANISM (it's in caps because it's never been even considered as an issue) just to name a few!
    This is exactly why Federalism is perhaps a good solution. Whole of Lebanon is not advancing in certain areas, especially in the issues you mentioned, BECAUSE the whole country needs to move at the same pace, BECAUSE we have a centralist system.

    Federalism would:
    • In a first stage, guarantee the rights already included in the Lebanese law
    • Then allow for certain regions to move forward at a faster pace than others

    The whole principle behind this is that competition between the regions moves the average level to the top rather than the bottom.

    To give you a practical example, in the US or the EU, certain countries or states already applied national laws (health and safety regulations, environmental protection, etc.), much earlier than others. For instance, some EU countries applied the warning signs and pictures on cigarette boxes long before other member states. Later, when EU leaders and members of the European Parliament were able to agree, this law was voted on (yesterday Tuesday, in fact), to be applied all over the EU, without exception.

    The fact that Belgium can legislate on banning tobacco ads before the EU enforces it, or that Flanders can implement certain regulations on its own territory, is a matter of choice. Likewise, if one region in Lebanon wants to move to make smoking illegal in public spaces before all the other Lebanese leaders could agree on that, then why not.

    The problem is that because each Lebanese region has to depend and wait for the national government to actually do something and legislate/enforce, then it remains behind instead of trying to advance and pull the other regions upwards with it, by leading by example!



    I mean we can't even agree on a single national identity, on an objective version of our history, on who's to blame for the civil war, and you want us to split ourselves into states? That would only entail further divisions among the Lebanese, further segregation in some areas (depending on what you'd define as state in your federal Lebanon), and maybe a future civil war because no matter how you draw your states, every single area would have a certain majority and a persecuted minority!

    My issue here isn't with federalism in itself, but with the ignorance in our society! You need to educate people on what a certain change entails before shoving it into their faces! You need a transitional period in which you make a new constitution and regulate the individual constitutions of your unitary states all the while educating people on the importance of being Lebanese! Otherwise, federalism would just destroy our already fragile balance!

    PS: I just quoted the last part of your post not because my answer is necessarily related to it, but because I thought your post was too big to quote
    I or you can't help with the retardedness of the Lebanese political system, the politicians and the citizens alike.

    I was talking with some Lebanese friends yesterday about just that. Lebanese don't understand politics. They understand that Geagea bombed and Aoun killed, and they believe that this is politics. It's laughable!

    My flatmate works for a Member of the European Parliament. Her office gets calls from citizens from the MEP's constituency asking what the MEP's position are on the projected ban of certain pesticides on food products. Others call asking him for information on laws or proposed laws on Shale gas/fracking legislation. Many ask him to support an amendment or ask a question to the Commission, etc.

    Lebanese will not learn how to deal with their elected representatives in a 100 years...

    Granted, Federalism will not be the solution to ALL problems in Lebanon, but perhaps some at least!
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Well, apologies, but it frustrates me when I read some comments that are completely based in lies. I happen to have majored in Political Sciences, I worked in lobbying groups and I follow politics from different countries on a daily basis. When people, especially Lebanese, start dissing at a concept they don't understand, without wanting to understand it (following my several posts on the subject), then it gets a bit annoying... ;)




    This is exactly why Federalism is perhaps a good solution. Whole of Lebanon is not advancing in certain areas, especially in the issues you mentioned, BECAUSE the whole country needs to move at the same pace, BECAUSE we have a centralist system.

    Federalism would:
    • In a first stage, guarantee the rights already included in the Lebanese law
    • Then allow for certain regions to move forward at a faster pace than others

    The whole principle behind this is that competition between the regions moves the average level to the top rather than the bottom.

    To give you a practical example, in the US or the EU, certain countries or states already applied national laws (health and safety regulations, environmental protection, etc.), much earlier than others. For instance, some EU countries applied the warning signs and pictures on cigarette boxes long before other member states. Later, when EU leaders and members of the European Parliament were able to agree, this law was voted on (yesterday Tuesday, in fact), to be applied all over the EU, without exception.

    The fact that Belgium can legislate on banning tobacco ads before the EU enforces it, or that Flanders can implement certain regulations on its own territory, is a matter of choice. Likewise, if one region in Lebanon wants to move to make smoking illegal in public spaces before all the other Lebanese leaders could agree on that, then why not.

    The problem is that because each Lebanese region has to depend and wait for the national government to actually do something and legislate/enforce, then it remains behind instead of trying to advance and pull the other regions upwards with it, by leading by example!





    I or you can't help with the retardedness of the Lebanese political system, the politicians and the citizens alike.

    I was talking with some Lebanese friends yesterday about just that. Lebanese don't understand politics. They understand that Geagea bombed and Aoun killed, and they believe that this is politics. It's laughable!

    My flatmate works for a Member of the European Parliament. Her office gets calls from citizens from the MEP's constituency asking what the MEP's position are on the projected ban of certain pesticides on food products. Others call asking him for information on laws or proposed laws on Shale gas/fracking legislation. Many ask him to support an amendment or ask a question to the Commission, etc.

    Lebanese will not learn how to deal with their elected representatives in a 100 years...

    Granted, Federalism will not be the solution to ALL problems in Lebanon, but perhaps some at least!
    To have federalism, shouldn't we start with civic education before the Lebanese interpret federalism as a carte blanche for more sectarian hatred?
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    dodzi

    Dude chill! The topic is partition not federalism, so forgive me for not reading your long posts about it! And my concerns are not based on lies, but on genuine opinions! You can either support or refute them, but you can't actually say they're based on lies! Again, stop pissing me off with technicalities!


    Now while my knowledge in federalism is limited (I personally majored in physics), in all its forms the central government controls foreign policy and defense strategy, and the last time I checked these are exactly the same issues that the Lebanese in general can't agree on! And I know that you already dismissed this question as "it would take you a week to answer" along with a couple of other questions, I would really like you to tell me how federalism would solve this!

    I understand that there's a need for decentralization, however this isn't a major issue! Again, we need to agree on an identity before considering a change for our political system!

    Muki and dodzi

    Plus how can Lebanon actually be divided into a group of states that are politically and economically viable? I mean Lebanon isn't that big of a country and if you opted for the current governorate system as a basis for your future state division, that would create economical problems in most of these states! You only have one airport and one functioning port, both of which are in Beirut! And what about the fact that most of agriculture is in Bekaa? If you choose to go on such a system of division, your decentralized government would be forced to regulate disputes between the different states on who gets what when how, which would lead to a stronger central government abolishing the necessity for federalism in the first place! As you so eloquently put it : "The problem is that because each Lebanese region has to depend and wait for the national government to actually do something and legislate/enforce, then it remains behind instead of trying to advance and pull the other regions upwards with it, by leading by example!"

    Now let's assume you create 3 major states, one for each sect! Which is what the biggest advocates of federalism actually want, their dream christian state! You're applying sectarian federalism here, not really solving any sectarian issues between the Lebanese! Quite the contrary actually! And this is my issue here! Not with the idea of federalism, not with confusion between sectarianism and federalism! But with the realistic implementation of this idea in a society that's already extremely intolerant! How would you actually achieve a three state division? Do you displace people based on their sects? Now I'm assuming that this is not your vision as it's not actually applicable! But here's another question, if you're defending federalism from a purely intellectual point of view and not out of irrational hatred towards others in your country, why then insist on pointing out that muslims are more sectarian than christians and that christians need to protect themselves?! And let's assume you actually do create a christian state, and it's as prosperous as Lebanon in the 60s in our grandparents' nostalgic memories, how would you protect your churches from a bunch of "more sectarian" muslims that want to behead you? Easy, you go back to the central government and you're faced with the same dilemma : "The problem is that because each Lebanese region has to depend and wait for the national government to actually do something and legislate/enforce, then it remains behind instead of trying to advance and pull the other regions upwards with it, by leading by example!"

    Finally dodzi, I'm not really opposed to federalism in theory! It's actually quite a nice idea! What I am opposed to is focusing on it as a magical solution for our issues, when it's nothing more than a different political system from the one we currently have! Meaning that it's not really a solution, it's just more of the same sh!t divided equally among states, and a crippled central government since we never managed to agree on let's say government spending!
     
    johnnyFPM

    johnnyFPM

    Legendary Member
    I think the extensive debates here about partition and/or federalism show one thing: neither option is viable.

    The only viable option would be to redraw the Levant and enforce movement of populations. Which seems very, very difficult, if not impossible.

    So I guess we're stuck in our 10452km².
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I think it's the turn for the Eastern Orthodox to rule Lebanon since it didn't work with the others who ruled it. :p
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    I think it's the turn for the Eastern Orthodox to rule Lebanon since it didn't work with the others who ruled it. :p
    I think that might be a good idea since they're the most secular sect in Lebanon :p!
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    To have federalism, shouldn't we start with civic education before the Lebanese interpret federalism as a carte blanche for more sectarian hatred?
    Lebanon's current governance system is already in a perverse way a form of de facto sectarian federalism, except it is an ill-organized mess. Why not organize the mess, while embarking on a very long term education journey?
     
    Top