The Middle East
Essay Preview: The Middle East
Report this essay
Can Democracy Function in the Middle-East?
The origins of sectarianism as a branch of modernity in Lebanon can be linked to the conflict between the Ottoman Empire and European colonialism. One must understand this history of elitism and how it is intertwined with sectarianism because before religious affiliation became a problem, Lebanese society was structured around a strict hierarchical order. In order to illustrate Confessionalism in Lebanon, one must examine scholarly research conducted in the area of colonial influence and critiques on the Lebanese confessional system. Colonial influence and differing scholarly opinions on the confessional system are significant to discern an accurate conclusion as to whether it is truly democratic and beneficial to all people or a hindrance to democracy.
European colonialism in Lebanon can be traced back to 1860; it was during this time period that Britain began supporting the Druze and the French supporting the Maronites. Support for these two particular religious groups was based on the idea that; 1) Supporting these two groups would justify European encroachment on the territory and 2) A Christian state in this region of the world would be more beneficial to the Europeans then an Islamic state. The concentration of power into these specific groups did not go unnoticed by the cultural elites who saw it as an opportunity to increase their power. They went on to use their influence in the families controlling multi-religious and ethnic communities. The 1932 census is where the confessional system in Lebanon stems from. When this census was surveyed, the Maronites made up a larger portion of the population so this was how the government would be divided giving Maronites greater control of this Arab nation. By 1975, the Muslims realized that their population now greatly outweighed their Christian counterparts and they were demanding more fair and accurate representation within their government. This sectarian rift boiled over and became one of the key fighting points during the Lebanese civil war from 1975-1990. The culmination of noble control came to fruition in 1943 when Lebanon was granted independence from France in a secret meeting involving the Maronite president and a Sunni Muslim. The problem with creating a state in secret with no input from the common people is there is no common history or nationality for people to attach themselves to. Since there is no common history, such as exclaiming one is French instead of a Christian, the options switch positions. Now, instead of referring to oneself as Lebanese, you would refer to yourself as a Sunni/Shia Muslim, Coptic, Maronite, Druze, et al. This is the sectarian rift which was being created all along starting with European backing their interests in the Middle-East region.
There are two political schools in mainstream Lebanese thought currently; 1) Confessionalism and 2) Secular Democracy. One scholar who writes at great length to establish the futility of confessionalism is Daoud Khairallah. He sees confessionalism as a system which extols the virtues of religious groups who are in power, thus debilitating the possibility for the creation of a unified national identity. Since the Maronites have the most power, they have the ultimate say in the governance of law (i.e. Personal Status Law, et al.) reflecting decisions in regard to marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. According to Khairallah, “these laws combined with confessional allegiance form the breeding ground for a confessional culture that prevents social and political integration, and undermines any true democratic experience.” Khairallah is a proponent for instituting a secular democracy in Lebanon. Secular Democracy has become like a religion to Frances political elites. This is to ensure and progress a national identity that people are French above all else. What a secular democracy could potentially accomplish in Lebanon is a true end to civil violence, a feeling that all Lebanese people have a voice that can be heard and unifying the population under the idea of being Lebanese. A flaw with transitioning to a secular democracy without bloodshed is that there hasnt been a census since 1932. The political elite and majority which have been disproportionately Maronite, since 1932, may not be willing to relinquish their ruling power. Michael Husdson in his article, Democracy and Social Mobilization in Lebanese Politics illustrates an excellent problem with confessionalism in regard to local list voting. This type of voting typically has two to three candidates which the locals vote on in an election. This doesnt sound unfair until you look at how many people in these areas who are of a certain sect do not have candidates on the ballot, forcing them to vote alternately. As mention above, this type of behavior breeds sectarian separatism and Hudson states, “many Lebanese feel discontented , disenfranchised from active political participation, perhaps by their sect or lack of money, with no means of legitimate political expression.”
Two well regarded proponents for a confessional system are Samir Khalaf and Mahmoud Ayoub. Khalafs focal point in defending confessionalism is that a sectarian partition “could be extended and enriched to incorporate other more secular and civic identities. If stripped of their bigotism and intolerance, they could also become the basis for more equitable and judicious forms of power sharing and the articulation of new cultural identities.” Khalaf speaks about a national identity and culture emerging from a confessional system but does not provide any logistical explanation on how Maronite Christian favoritism will be eliminated from the system that manifested itself to the proportion it is now. Ayoubs position is one against “Westernization”, he believes that religion and state should remain intertwined because Islam and religion was, is and should always be an important factor in regional affairs of the Middle-East because it is his belief that it manifests community and good morals. Ayoubs argument against “Westernization” is flawed because every country in the Middle-East with the exception of Saudi Arabia and Iran have implemented in some way or form particular ideas from Western democracy. This is in addition to the fact that there are technically two democracies in the Middle-East, Egypt and Lebanon. Also, other Arab nations like Qatar and the United Arab Emigrates have more than 90% Muslims in their country but still maintain secular institutions while being Islamic. I would have to question if Ayoub is suggesting a complete reversal of the previous accomplishments, implementing new regulations and fairer proportional representation but calling