March 23, 2002

The Daily Star

Wednesday evening Carlos Edde spoke about political mobilization to an audience at Universite Saint Joseph. The National Bloc leader did so by inviting the rare mechanism of self-criticism. The topic was particularly apt at a time when two hegemonic political forces square off in Lebanon, while the public sits by the wayside. Between the security services and the disciples of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, precious little room has been left for a third way, even if the Qornet Shehwan gathering has sought to change this.
Edde opened by listing those responsible for the current foul state of affairs in Lebanon. His was a usual catalogue of rogues: the Israelis, Syrians, Palestinians, former militia leaders, corrupt politicians. But then he included those who had sinned by omission ­ the general public, which has often refused to mobilize in support of an improved social order.
As Edde put it: “If we act, nothing might change; but if we don’t, things will most certainly change for the worse.” He illustrated the ambient resignation by reporting that since returning to Lebanon he had been informed, relentlessly, that “things in Lebanon are what they are, and they will only change when regional alignments change.”
What are the attractions of political mobilization in Lebanon? Edde used the example of former Latin American and Eastern European dictatorships to argue that when the “silent majority” in those countries became vocal in demanding greater freedom, the result was a mushrooming of democratic systems. By extension, he continued, Lebanon should aspire to such emancipation.
Here the secular Edde came forward. He maintained that a genuinely democratic system is one where confessionalism is absent. Only when individuals are chosen for their competence, not their religious affiliation, can Lebanon modernize. This was the Brazilian in Edde speaking, and to hear him remark that he had difficulty thinking in terms of a Christian-Muslim dichotomy was, given the temper of the audience, exotic.
However, supporters of a secular system err in downplaying the fact that Lebanese democracy is a by-product of confessionalism. In absolute terms Edde is right: The system more often than not rewards mediocrity. However, a secular order in Lebanon would only mask the deep confessional identities permeating the society and which provide most Lebanese with an explanation of who they are.
Confessionalism has also protected the Lebanese from the exploitation of an overbearing state. One thing that blocks the advent of a permanent administration of policemen is the inability of the state to impose itself over communal cleavages. Where communal identities have been (temporarily) suffocated in the surrounding region, it is mainly through the efforts of ruinous autocratic regimes.
The advantages of confessionalism notwithstanding, Edde is right to reprimand the passiveness of the Lebanese, whatever their community. During much of the war years the “silent majority” noisily backed the killings and those hooligans conducting them. In contrast, during the past decade of peace the public has been mute as successive regimes have sanctioned state imperiousness, plundered the country’s finances, raised taxes to perverse levels and abused national institutions.
Today, as Lebanon stands on the edge of the economic abyss, the public can still sit dumb as the prime minister emits vacuous assurances on his own television station that all is well, because ­ get this ­ tourism is on the rise. And what splendid stoicism it takes to sit silently through the vulgar theater that commonly passes for administrative and judicial procedure. Everywhere there is a dead calm in the face of manipulation, and when the Lebanese finally become angry, they just pack up and leave.
For Edde, Lebanon needs a “national project and economic plan” to salvage what remains. Indeed, in this most personalized of political systems, it will be a happy day when political figures accept that they are not there to paternalistically impose their preconceptions on the public. Lebanon has become an insufferable forest of fathers, where, to paraphrase Edde, “genealogy is preferred to capability.”
However, wouldn’t allowing these fathers to formulate a national project be a way of guaranteeing their survival? What better project can there be than one whose ultimate objective is to avoid overarching national projects, and the political paternalism accompanying them? Mobilization of the “silent majority” is a necessity, but not if the aim is to transfer more power to a state run by those already misusing it today.
One often wonders whether Lebanon’s salvation might come not from making the state more credible, but more invisible. Carlos Edde, to his credit, believes in the Lebanese state’s capacity to reform thanks to a concerned and mobilized public. He may well be correct. However, if the public really prefers indifference, wouldn’t the best safeguard be a state that is devoid of much authority at all?

Copyright © The Daily Star