ÿþ<HTML dir="rtl"lang="en"> <head> <link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css" type="text/css" charset="utf-8" /> <title>Toni Hadchiti</title> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> </head> <body> <div id="container2"><div align="center"><a href="home.html"><img src="banner.jpg" border="0" align="center" style="margin-right:0px"></a> <br><br><br> <div id="title">Each community elects its own deputies : An actual charter equally shared</div> <br><br> <img src="voting.jpg" style="align: center;" /><p class="left" dir="ltr"><br><br><br>Since the 1920s a cohort of thinkers and think tanks have put out a bevy of articles and studies dealing with Lebanon s identity. More recently, a gathering of Greek Orthodox thinkers re-emphasized the varied, plural nature of Lebanon, and brought to the fore the true authentic face of the Lebanese society. But the Greek Orthodox Gathering was stating the obvious. Lebanon is a  composite of many constitutive elements, more broadly made up of Muslim and Christian  wings ; a country of multiple identities and communities, each with their own personality, consciousness, ethos, and self-perception, all of which the outcome of unique political, historical, and confessional circumstances. Recognizing these realities, the Greek Orthodox Assembly proposed the adoption of a political system whereby each of Lebanon s communities would elect their own deputies by way of a regime of proportional representation. <br><br> What prompts me to weigh in on this proposal is not necessarily the fact that it dovetails with my own convictions, nor is it because it seems to me the only system that guarantees rights to justice and equality for all of Lebanon s communal groups. My comments here come from the fact that many so-called  progressives have clamored to brand this proposal  reactionary,  isolationist,  devious, and  opportunist ; in sum, in their words, the proposal was an affront to Lebanon s  National Pact. <br><br> <b>A brief historical overview:</b><br> Prior to 1975, Lebanon s Christians enjoyed wider parliamentary representation than their Muslim counterparts. What s more, Christian leaderships often brought under their sway a number of Muslim deputies into a number of Christian constituencies. Muslims deemed these practices an infringement on their rights, their morale, and their communal prerogatives. Indeed, many observers argue that this practice was one of the main causes that led to April 13, 1975, the start of the Lebanese civil war. <br><br> These 1975 realities are at play in reverse today. But today s Lebanese hardly need a second civil war to realize that any fiddling with the existential interests of any of their country s communal groups is apt to spark a new bloody conflagration. Indeed, the post-Ta if electoral laws mandated a parliamentary parity between Muslims and Christians in Lebanon that is to say a chamber of deputies composed of 64 Christian deputies and 64 Muslim ones. Alas, this does not necessarily entail each community choosing its own representatives. <br><br> <b>Refuting some theories:</b><br> Since Lebanon s parliamentary seats are allocated proportionately, why not take this exercise to its natural conclusion by granting each community the right to elect its own representatives, regardless of each community s actual size? Adopting a such system will guarantee each minority s communal rights and prevent communal apprehensions that might result from changing demographic realities and shifting political alliances. To wit, were the numbers of Byblian Shi ites in ten years time to be reduced by half, they would still maintain their Parliamentary seat for Byblos in spite of the overwhelming Christian majority in that district. <br><br> Can one truly, in good conscience, speak of isolationism when each communal group in Lebanon is guaranteed the security and fair representation it deserves? Let those dismissing the proposals of the Greek Orthodox Gathering submit their own alternative proposals; but let them also make sure theirs do not impinge on the rights and prerogatives of the  other. It is true that co-existence mandates concessions from  all. But concessions must not entail subjecting the  other to dhimmi laws, nor must concessions lead to negating the  other and stifling his rights, his specificity, and his identity. <br><br> What is most ironic in the premise of those vilifying the Greek-Orthodox Gathering s proposal is that it allegedly prevents the election of righteous deserving candidates from other communities. To those I say:  all communities are lucky enough to have their own cohort of righteous deserving candidates; so let each community elect its own  righteous ! Inter-communal representation is not the same thing as  righteous selection of representatives! <br><br> How can the nay-sayers keep the argument that proportionate representation is somehow  reactionary,  isolationist,  devious, and  opportunist ? Is equality and power-sharing among all of Lebanon s constitutive elements (without privileging one group over the other) truly an affront to Lebanon s Pact of coexistence? Of course not! The Greek-Orthodox Gathering s proposal is nothing if not validation and strengthening of Lebanon s Christian-Muslim charter; true and authentic power-sharing, instead of  rule by numbers, a system whose only aim is the negation of the  other. <br><br> As for my own opinion regarding the core idea that sees  elections as a way for one component of Lebanese society to elect the deputies of the other component, in the hope that each will eventually dwell in the general bailiwick of the other, here s what I think: Christian-Muslim harmony will never be achieved by way of forcing the  self to represent the  other. Harmony will come with the unconditional  acceptance of the other, by way of organizing Lebanese Christians and Lebanese Muslims through new political parties that respect and insure the  other s freedom to flaunt their identity, their history, their ethos, their culture, their traditions, their cultural accretions, and their spiritual and educational backdrops. Only then can communal ethos come together and cooperate in expressing, each, their own selfhood in ways they each deem appropriate to themselves, their children, and their heritage. <br><br> <b>Conclusion:</b><br> In the end, and while awaiting the technical details of the Orthodox Gathering s proposal, I wish to stress the fact that this proposal constitutes a giant step towards the elaboration of a new regime for Lebanon; it marks the transformation of the country s current unfair, unitary, centralized system, into a fairer federal decentralized system that is more in tune with Lebanon s true nature, and more representative of Lebanon s composite pluralist realities. In addition to the preceding, we must stress that Lebanon should be shielded from the politics of the region s conflicts, through a system of  positive neutrality. Beside that, it is necessary to form a 19th community for the seculars which allows them to participate equitably in the new regime. <br><br><br><br> This opinion text has been published in Arabic in Al Balad newspaper on November 12th 2011 : www.tonihadchiti.com/article23.html </div><br><br> <div id="toni2">Toni Hadchiti</div> <br> <br> <div align=center><br><a href="home.html"><u><b>Home</b></u></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="articles.html"><u><b>Articles</b></u></a> </ul> </div> </body> </html><br><br>