Formation of a New Frontier
The volatile swinging pendulum of the Lebanese state, dates back to 1920. The Maronite Christians of Lebanon had long anticipated a nation to call their own. Maronite Patriarch Elias Hoyek headed several Lebanese delegations during the Paris Picot-Sykes conferences. The delegation lobbied for Maronite particularism, and sought to establish a state for Christians of the region. Due to a close and keen relationship with the French, the Maronites were successful in their efforts.
The idea was to create a home for the Maronites who inhabited the Mountains whilst including nearby Muslim and Druze communities. The French advised the Maronites against creating a pluralistic state citing the Maronites would lose any chance of being a clear cut majority, which would put them at risk. Adamant on their demands, the Maronites insisted on annexing the Muslim Bekka and South for their state. Although reluctant, the French granted it. On September 1st 1920 , Greater Lebanon was born.
Fundamentals Gone Awry
“rather than create a state, the Lebanese created multiple states within a state.”
Greater Lebanon, stood as a model of pluralism. The Maronites developed a power-sharing system to help bond the Muslims to the Christians. The Maronites would assume the presidency while the prime minister would be Sunni and the speaker of parliament would be Shi’ite. The Maronites would also be given majority representation in Parliament to help them overcome shifting demographics. This “national pact” was the new socio-political order and the Maronites were very pleased with the outcome. However, little did they know, rather than create a state, the Lebanese created multiple states within a state.
From its very creation, the concept of Lebanon varies among Lebanon’s differing sects. The Maronites anticipated Lebanon to be a beacon of western civilization, clearly distinguished from any Arab role, and as a Christian stronghold in the region. The Maronites contested Lebanon to be solely “Lebanese” while Muslims virtually supported the latter. This division in fundamental identity would impact Lebanon as it led to rifts in national order. Christians saw Lebanon in one light, while Muslims saw it in another, therefore each sect clung to its own light and regarded the other as a shadow, making Lebanon a nation of nations.
This can be examined through analyzing the role of Lebanese state institutions. For example, In in the judicial context, the Lebanese state does not have one national judicial court system. Rather, it has 18 separate courts that deal with each specific sectarian community’s concerns. Consequently, this results in a failure of prosecution and has rendered the judicial system as a broken institution. This is just one, out of the hundreds of failed state- services Lebanon has to offer. In the medical arena, the nation’s hospitals are reserved for each sect and even by social class. There is no national standard of treatment, insurance, or even cost rates. In addition, it is quite common for doctors to stamp their ethno-religious sects on their clinics beside their names. This mismanagement of state services is only the beginning of state failure on behalf of pluralism.
Balance Beam of a Census: The Maronite Order of 1920–75
The sectarian system was put in place to ensure equality among the sects, and was established to especially preserve the Maronites of Lebanon. In terms of demographics, the 1932 census of Lebanon was the last official census conducted to this date. According to An-Nahar, Lebanese-Christians made up 58.7 % of Lebanon while Muslims stood at 40%. This census gave the Lebanese Christians the security and social order they long desired. Securing the presidency, while securing majority representation in parliament, and constituting the majority of the population, the Lebanese state was under complete Christian influence, making it the only nation in the region to do so. In regards to pluralism, one must observe how population effects the social influence on a nation. The pluralistic model observes differing populations competing for the majority, in order to implement a specific social order.
1958 Lebanon Crisis: Lebanese Christian Order Overthrown.
The 1958 “Lebanon crisis” ushered an undetected prelude of destruction to the very fabric of Christian order in Lebanese society. It demonstrated just how fragile this Lebanese Christian order was. Lebanese president, Camille Chamoun, a right-winged Lebanese, struggled to keep national order, as Egypt’s Abdul Nasser’s Arab nationalism began to fuel Arab-Muslim riots and protests in Lebanon. Slowly but surely , the very fragile Maronite concept of Lebanese nationalism was met face to face with its opposition.
For the most part, Lebanese nationalism or particularism, was an ideology that mainly Lebanese Maronite- Christians carried. It was the idea that Lebanon was to be a non-Arab frontier and served as the Lebanese-Christian anthem for self- determination. However, for most Muslims, Pan-Arabism in addition to the Palestinian cause was to be the dominant order of Lebanese society. This political split is the main cause of failure behind Lebanon’s pluralism.
The 1958 crisis completely foreshadowed the 1975 Lebanese civil war. Simmering sectarianism began to grip Lebanon, fueling an arabist uprising on the Muslim end. Acting swiftly, Lebanon’s Camille Chamoun called on U.S. president Eisenhower, to help Lebanon remain stable. The former Lebanese president was successful in his request and American troops aided the Lebanese Army in dispelling the arabist riots in Lebanon. The Lebanese Christians won that round. But little did they know, in the years to come, their influence would soon die out.
Israel’s Role
Exactly 10 years earlier, in 1948, Britain would forever change the fabric of the Middle East. The establishment of the state of Israel sent shock waves throughout the region. The region watched helplessly as Palestinians were evicted from their homes, and expelled from Palestine. The Jews demanded to be recognized as a state, and after the holocaust that occurred during World War II, the international community was in no position to oppose.
The Israeli- Palestinian conflict caused many Palestinians to flee to neighboring Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. This influx of refugees affected many, but not the way it pummeled Lebanon. Already walking a tight rope between its sectarian balance system, the Lebanese state accepted the refugees, but at a cost: severe social chaos and polarization.
The pluralistic model’s weakness was exemplified during the Palestinian crisis in Lebanon. The Multiple sectarian communities’ distain for each other was much like a kettle over an open flame: simmering, ready to burst. Taking in the Palestinians was more than just a humanitarian action. It became a threat to the Lebanese social dichotomy of balance. The mere presence of Palestinians in Lebanon tipped the delicate balance beam of Lebanon’s social-political sphere. Although the sectarian system assured Lebanese Christians that the Palestinians would never become citizens, having half a million people filling up a small, diverse, and fairly new country in the midst of Middle Eastern disaster, was enough to develop a new social order.
Nasserism v. Lebanon
Flashing forward to 1958, Leaders like Egypt’s Abdul Nasser used Israel’s establishment as a vessel to unite all Arab countries under the umbrella of Arab nationalism, vowing to form a single Pan-Arab nation which would rally for, the then, 10 year-old Palestinian cause.
This Arabist rhetoric, that became known as Arabism or “Nasserism” , reached the Levant as Egypt and Syria formed the U.A.R ( United Arab Republic). Although short lived, Syria remained a Baathist stronghold in the Levant. This was another recipe for disaster for the Lebanese due to the fact Syria had no formal relations with Lebanon and did not officially recognize Lebanese borders. This left Lebanon, particularly the Christians in a vulnerable spot from the beginning and sowed discourse for the full breakout of the 1975 Lebanese Civil War.
Palestinian Militias v. State of Lebanon
In 1975, the Arab social order reached its peak, as Palestinian refugees disregarded Lebanese sovereignty, and formed the P.L.O’s headquarters in Beirut. The P.L.O functioned as an armed movement that’s sole cause was to liberate Palestine. Fully armed, carrying out raids, and running rampant throughout Lebanon, the Lebanese government officially lost control of the situation. Israel who had been fighting the Palestinians on Lebanon’s southern border, launched a grand attack on Beirut Airport. The Lebanese government immediately dissolved and Lebanon suddenly found itself plunged into an armed conflict. To make matters worse, the Lebanese found themselves in an even bigger predicament. They were divided on the situation. The Lebanese Muslims sided with Palestinians and interpreted the situation as an Israeli attack on an Arab front. The Lebanese nationalists (Christians) blamed the Palestinians and staunchly stated that the Palestinians’ had no jurisdiction to start a war on the expense of the Lebanese state and its people, nor to clash with the Lebanese Army. The warning fell upon deaf ears and divided Lebanon spiraled into a 15 year- long civil war. Essentially, Lebanese Muslims favoring transnational Arabism over their fellow Christian nationals, is a classic example of pluralism gone awry.
Civil War Aftermath: The Taif Agreement: A New Social Order.
The 1990 ceasefire changed Lebanon forever. Lebanese Christians once the fleeting majority of Lebanon found themselves at a staggering 25% as majority fled the country. Lebanese leaders sat at the negotiating table, establishing a new national pact, this time without the help of France. Rather than impose a new political system that would benefit the Lebanese state, the Saudi- led negotiations rendered Lebanon an Arab country, redacted the Maronite presidential powers, strengthen the Sunni Prime Minister, and eliminated Christian majority in parliament. In essence, Lebanon’s 1990 ceasefire was not a real solution. It merely passed the Maronite social order to the Sunnis, who had suddenly retained the strongest power.
Many Lebanese leaders such as Sami Gemayel, detected this and urged the Taif agreement to be scrapped, calling it an infringement on Lebanon’s national identity. Gemayel testified against the dangers of large scale Arab label being slapped on Lebanon’s diverse population citing it as an infringement of the Lebanese state. However, it was clear that the Lebanon Maronite order was officially dead. For, a new social order had emerged over the Lebanese people. The pendulum shifted from the Christians to an Arab- Muslim order. Once again accentuating the flaws of Middle Eastern pluralism.
Syria Vs. Lebanon: Foreign Intervention and its effects on Pluralism
Syria had an immense role to play during the Civil war conflict as well. As the pendulum swayed away from the previous social order, Syria took advantage of a weakened Christian presence in Lebanon to further impose its political agenda. During the Syrian occupation, the Syrian regime was a bastion of baathism and Arab order. Since Lebanese independence, Syria was never eager to recognize Lebanon because it viewed it as a product of French colonialism. Even Hafez Al- Assad, the former Syrian president, would boast vengefully about the day Lebanon would succumb to full Syrian authority. In fact, since the independence of both countries, Syria refused to acknowledge Lebanon as a sovereign state until 2008. This dichotomy of dismissing Maronite particularism as western imperialism, is an immense consequence of Arab imperialism. This furthermore exposed Syria’s ulterior motive on its occupation in Lebanon.
In a broader context, it serves as a reminder of the minority persecution that is often muted if not completely disregarded in the Middle East. For example, the political silencing of Egypt’s Copts, or Syria’s Assyrians, or Iraq’s Chaldeans is a silence Baathists often order in exchange for peace. This form of Pluralism of “let us control you, and we’ll protect you ” is a classic cat and mouse game from countries like Syria on MENA minorities, and its one Arab-Muslims are quite fond of. In Lebanon’s case the Arab -Muslim Syrian regime was quick to assassinate Lebanese Christians who refused to give up their political power and sovereignty.
In a historical context, Many seem to forget that Lebanon was created for minorities by minorities, while Syria always lauded an Arab identity. For example, there were many Lebanese who lobbied for Lebanese nationalism prior to European colonialism. Arabists are quick to dispel Maronite history and activists such as Youssef Bey Karam, Patriarch Elias Hoyek, and even the Maronites during the Crusader era ,who all lobbied for Lebanese independence and freedom. In addition, many choose to ignore that the Maronites sided with the west repeatedly throughout history, to ensure their self- determination and survival because pluralism in the region, was only acceptable with Arab Muslims in control. During the Crusades, the Maronites sided with the French to expel Arab -Muslims from Mt. Lebanon, to maintain their freedom. Again, during the Ottoman Empire, it was Youssef Bey Karam, a Maronite, who led revolts against the Ottoman-Turks. Finally, during the French-mandate era, at the battle of Maysalun, it was the Maronites who celebrated the defeat of the Arab Kingdom of Syria, with the French, while Muslims viewed it as a loss.
This Arab perspective that regards minority or Christian history as nothing but western-backed imperialism or conspiracy is the precise reason why pluralism is moot and dysfunctional in the Middle East.
Analysis
The Pluralism model in Lebanon is one of severe dysfunction and division. The model was put in place to protect regional minorities, such as the Maronites and establish a democratic way of life. However, due to lack of common understanding and real mutual value of acceptance, it has turned Lebanon into a competition: a nation too afraid to conduct another census. The effects of the Lebanese Civil War is a testimony to this.
In addition, Lebanon didn’t fail because it had a power-sharing System. It failed because the sects, particularly the Arab-muslims, never took the time to fully understand why real pluralism is crucial for minorities in the region. The Maronites serve as a crucial lesson because they are the only minorities, Christians, in the region to ever hold power. The Pluralistic model in the Middle East can only work if Muslim Arabs can accept to be ruled by regional minorities. Not every country in the Middle East has to be Arab or Muslim. Essentially, The problem is not yet over and the proof is in the concession of the Maronite identity to the Arab Muslim identity which hinders any form of realistic pluralism in the region, specifically in Lebanon.
