Ya Libnan

MP Nicolas: Sectarian-based voting divides the Lebanese

Share:

Free Patriotic Movement MP Nabil Nicolas rejected on Saturday evening during an interview with New TV an . electoral law proposal which will limit the voters to vote for their own candidates of their sects calling such a proposal “very dangerous because it divides the Lebanese people along sectarian lines and increases intolerance.”

“This would lead to a federal state based on sects,” Nicolas said , voicing hope that “the Christian committee of the Maronite patriarchate will produce an acceptable and reasonable proposal.”

Lebanese political parties are debating a new electoral law for the upcoming 2013 parliamentary elections. Some political parties such as the PSP has opposed the proposed law which is based on proportional representation and is insisting on keeping the 2009 electoral law, which is based on simple majority representation, some Christian parties are concerned that Shiites and Sunnis are electing their Christian representatives and therefore want smaller electoral districts with each sect to electing its own representatives

Share:

Comments

33 responses to “MP Nicolas: Sectarian-based voting divides the Lebanese”

  1. ralphsrouji Avatar
    ralphsrouji

    “very dangerous because it divides the Lebanese people along sectarian lines and increases intolerance.”
    Last I checked lebanese were a model on non-sectarianism and the archetypes of tolerance.
    Why is federalism so vehemently demonized. Every other road was tested and failed, even civil war has failed.
    I’m sick and tired of hearing anti-federalism remarks without further explanation why such a system would hurt Lebanon.
    The most peaceful countries in the world are federal countries!
    Or should we just keep saying no fearing it would work?

    1. 5thDrawer Avatar
      5thDrawer

      Republican Democracies are NOT Parliamentary Democracies … etc … and the most peaceful are Parliamentary it seems to me.

  2. ralphsrouji Avatar
    ralphsrouji

    “very dangerous because it divides the Lebanese people along sectarian lines and increases intolerance.”
    Last I checked lebanese were a model on non-sectarianism and the archetypes of tolerance.
    Why is federalism so vehemently demonized. Every other road was tested and failed, even civil war has failed.
    I’m sick and tired of hearing anti-federalism remarks without further explanation why such a system would hurt Lebanon.
    The most peaceful countries in the world are federal countries!
    Or should we just keep saying no fearing it would work?

  3. Avatar
    Anonymous

    “very dangerous because it divides the Lebanese people along sectarian lines and increases intolerance.”
    Last I checked lebanese were a model on non-sectarianism and the archetypes of tolerance.
    Why is federalism so vehemently demonized. Every other road was tested and failed, even civil war has failed.
    I’m sick and tired of hearing anti-federalism remarks without further explanation why such a system would hurt Lebanon.
    The most peaceful countries in the world are federal countries!
    Or should we just keep saying no fearing it would work?

    1. Avatar
      Anonymous

      Republican Democracies are NOT Parliamentary Democracies … etc … and the most peaceful are Parliamentary it seems to me.

    2. Avatar
      Anonymous

      Republican Democracies are NOT Parliamentary Democracies … etc … and the most peaceful are Parliamentary it seems to me.

  4. shankarees Avatar
    shankarees

    What’s wrong with a federal state system?  Local laws within one state in the USA differ from one county to the other.  Let local communities have the freedom, to a degree, decide what works for them.  The county where Jack Daniels bourbon is produced is a dry county.  The producers cannot taste their bourbon unless they take it out of the county.  If the same is applied in Lebanon, many Qadaa2s in the South and Dahieh will become dry, for example.

    1. 5thDrawer Avatar
      5thDrawer

      More booze is smuggled into Iran than into any other country. And good Scotch is better than Jack Daniels. 😉
         In the USA, Federal Law supercedes State Law when it pertains to matters of the Constitution under that Republican System … often regarded as a little strange even to the French who are are another Republic. 🙂
        A Parliamentary system such as the British have – without an expensive ‘President’ – seems better and more representative of all the people as the ones they ‘elect’ sit in the ‘government house’ together … but to stop the civil war in Lebanon they added a President and the word ‘Confessional’ to ‘Parliamentary Democracy’ – and kept the sectarian problems which strangely made everyone stop shooting for a while (tired of it?) – but didn’t really get rid of the little dictators running their own little Fiefs under 18 ‘religious’ banners, so the country doesn’t function as one entity very well … and this keeps everyone in a state of paranoia too.
      And that’s why it needs to change … and soon.

  5. Avatar
    Anonymous

    What’s wrong with a federal state system?  Local laws within one state in the USA differ from one county to the other.  Let local communities have the freedom, to a degree, decide what works for them.  The county where Jack Daniels bourbon is produced is a dry county.  The producers cannot taste their bourbon unless they take it out of the county.  If the same is applied in Lebanon, many Qadaa2s in the South and Dahieh will become dry, for example.

    1. Avatar
      Anonymous

      More booze is smuggled into Iran than into any other country. And good Scotch is better than Jack Daniels. 😉
         In the USA, Federal Law supercedes State Law when it pertains to matters of the Constitution under that Republican System … often regarded as a little strange even to the French who are are another Republic. 🙂
        A Parliamentary system such as the British have – without an expensive ‘President’ – seems better and more representative of all the people as the ones they ‘elect’ sit in the ‘government house’ together … but to stop the civil war in Lebanon they added a President and the word ‘Confessional’ to ‘Parliamentary Democracy’ – and kept the sectarian problems which strangely made everyone stop shooting for a while (tired of it?) – but didn’t really get rid of the little dictators running their own little Fiefs under 18 ‘religious’ banners, so the country doesn’t function as one entity very well … and this keeps everyone in a state of paranoia too.
      And that’s why it needs to change … and soon.

      1. Avatar
        Anonymous

        I agree with you without any reservations.  You are right on all points including Scotch over Jack Daniels.  It seems to me that some Fiefdoms like those of the Hezzies and the Aounies give themselves absolute powers over everybody and everything.

  6. Sebouh80 Avatar
    Sebouh80

    The classical Marxian theory of Class Consciousness is not missing in a country like Lebanon, but the Lebanese have been unable to translate their consciousness into collective, organized power. Family and sect interests, not class interests, dictate the course of political rivalry.

    For those who are calling for a federal state system. This system cannot happen for a simple reason the country is too small and if it happens this will inevitably lead to a sectarian cantons. Lebanon is not US or Germany.

    1. 5thDrawer Avatar
      5thDrawer

      True. And being against ‘class’ is a little silly – one can readily see some have more of it than others. 🙂
        Under the Communists of Russia, it was only ‘The Party’ which had enough theoretical ‘class’ to lord it over all the others – about 300 members perhaps – and a very few who actually led those by the nose – usually the most ruthless. China probably runs with about the same proportions of ‘party’ vs ‘proletariate’ … and the Socialist theories don’t work well with the average human not willing to be exactly the same in all things as everybody else. Because we are NOT the same.
      (Certainly ‘the families’ who ‘rule’ don’t see us as being the same as them – examples abound. 😉
        Equality of opportunity and the freedom to persue that; rights of thought and expression; and humane treatment of all peoples, are things we COULD write into ‘law’ … but making humans equal is impossible … unless you clone them perhaps. And then we might as well go back to being Amoebae.

    2. 5thDrawer Avatar
      5thDrawer

      True. And being against ‘class’ is a little silly – one can readily see some have more of it than others. 🙂
        Under the Communists of Russia, it was only ‘The Party’ which had enough theoretical ‘class’ to lord it over all the others – about 300 members perhaps – and a very few who actually led those by the nose – usually the most ruthless. China probably runs with about the same proportions of ‘party’ vs ‘proletariate’ … and the Socialist theories don’t work well with the average human not willing to be exactly the same in all things as everybody else. Because we are NOT the same.
      (Certainly ‘the families’ who ‘rule’ don’t see us as being the same as them – examples abound. 😉
        Equality of opportunity and the freedom to persue that; rights of thought and expression; and humane treatment of all peoples, are things we COULD write into ‘law’ … but making humans equal is impossible … unless you clone them perhaps. And then we might as well go back to being Amoebae.

    3. shankarees Avatar
      shankarees

      Size, in this case, has no bearing on the subject.  Whatever system allows people to live together and keep their differences without fighting should be acceptable.  The alternative is more wars without end.

      1. libnan1 Avatar
        libnan1

        Size does matter ….:)

        1. 5thDrawer Avatar
          5thDrawer

          I just KNEW some dirty mind like mine would come up with that – but I had more ‘class’ and waited. 🙂
          😉

        2. 5thDrawer Avatar
          5thDrawer

          I just KNEW some dirty mind like mine would come up with that – but I had more ‘class’ and waited. 🙂
          😉

        3. shankarees Avatar
          shankarees

          But, but, but…I wrote “in this case.”

        4. shankarees Avatar
          shankarees

          5thDrawer,
          I meant by size with regard to a baby compared to a grown person.  I had nothing dirty in mind.  😉

  7. Avatar
    Anonymous

    The classical Marxian theory of Class Consciousness is not missing in a country like Lebanon, but the Lebanese have been unable to translate their consciousness into collective, organized power. Family and sect interests, not class interests, dictate the course of political rivalry.

    For those who are calling for a federal state system. This system cannot happen for a simple reason the country is too small and if it happens this will inevitably lead to a sectarian cantons. Lebanon is not US or Germany.

    1. Avatar
      Anonymous

      True. And being against ‘class’ is a little silly – one can readily see some have more of it than others. 🙂
        Under the Communists of Russia, it was only ‘The Party’ which had enough theoretical ‘class’ to lord it over all the others – about 300 members perhaps – and a very few who actually led those by the nose. China probably runs with about the same proportions of ‘party’ vs ‘proletariate’ … and the Socialist theories don’t work well with the average human not willing to be exactly the same in all things as everybody else. Because we are NOT the same.
        Equality of opportunity, rights of thought and expression, and humane treatment of all peoples is something we COULD write into ‘law’ … but making humans equal is impossible … unless you clone them perhaps. And then we might as well go back to being Amoebae.

    2. Avatar
      Anonymous

      Size, in this case, has no bearing on the subject.  Whatever system allows people to live together and keep their differences without fighting should be acceptable.  The alternative is more wars without end.

      1. Avatar
        Anonymous

        Size does matter ….:)

        1. Avatar
          Anonymous

          I just KNEW some dirty mind like mine would come up with that – but I had more ‘class’ and waited. 🙂
          😉

        2. Avatar
          Anonymous

          I just KNEW some dirty mind like mine would come up with that – but I had more ‘class’ and waited. 🙂
          😉

        3. Avatar
          Anonymous

          But, but, but…I wrote “in this case.”

        4. Avatar
          Anonymous

          5thDrawer,
          I meant by size with regard to a baby compared to a grown person.  I had nothing dirty in mind.  😉

  8. leb_expatriate Avatar
    leb_expatriate

    The Christians of Lebanon can’t have it all. If they want to elect all their Christian MPs then they must be willing to relinquish their 50% percent control of parliament unless a census proves they do actually make up 50% of the population.

    I think this entire confessional system of government which is out dated and serves only the sectarian elite should be abolished and replaced with a more open, inclusive and democratic system of government.

  9. Avatar
    Anonymous

    The Christians of Lebanon can’t have it all. If they want to elect all their Christian MPs then they must be willing to relinquish their 50% percent control of parliament unless a census proves they do actually make up 50% of the population.

    I think this entire confessional system of government which is out dated and serves only the sectarian elite should be abolished and replaced with a more open, inclusive and democratic system of government.

Leave a Reply