STL Funding and Lebanese Polity

Share:

by Ghassan Karam

And so Lebanon dodges another bullet. What was billed, by all sides, as being potentially an explosive event ended up being a whimper just like the Elliot had predicted in “The Hollow Men” :

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.

But has the problem been solved or have we applied the traditional Lebanese formula that has been in control of the country for over fifty years. La Ghaleb wa la Maghloob. No winners no losers. What a crock. Why anyone should be obligated to act responsibly if the outcome never matters. It always ends with the La Ghaleb wa la Maghloob.

In the last round things are different. No matter what kind of a spin anyone wishes to apply to the outcome Mr. Mikati has scored a touchdown in the last seconds of the fourth quarter. As a result the big losers are both Hezbollah who promised that the STL will never be financed and then obviously the clAoun who never seems to know what he wants. It is as if he is always waiting for orders from Damascus.

But this apparent victory is hollow. It does not mean much.  Lebanon is still waiting for the real independent Najib Mikati to stand up and make a statement that is based on nothing else but the Lebanese national interest. He has not done that yet and it is highly unlikely that he would. The FPM on the other hand is busy bending itself into a pretzel form to say that what they have always cared most about is the integrity of Lebanon more than the simple singular issue of STL finance. The only response to that is bunk!!! This fiasco has demonstrated again the lack of professionalism, the amateurism in decision making and the total incompetence of those in charge of the FPM. But don’t blame them blame those that have voted for them without holding them responsible for anything and blame those that will vote for them again.

But the biggest looser by far is Hezbollah. A party that has threatened and cajoled a people on this very same issue that they had to eventually agree to. It will be next to impossible to explain rationally this flip flop of Hezbollah.

But Lebanon has not won except a small moral victory. HA still acts as a state within a state. Note the recent problem with electric generation at AlZahrani power generation plant. The official Lebanese authorities have not been allowed to enter that area because it is only a “ghost” part of Lebanon an incorporeal region. The South is ruled by HA and neither the Lebanese Army, nor the Lebanese PM nor the Lebanese President have much to say about that.

Unfortunately Lebanon’s problems are not limited to those mentions, as seminal as they might be. The opposition; March 14; is not in a much more enviable shape. Sa’ad Hariri has demonstrated amply enough that he was not born to lead. He is neither charismatic, nor well read he is neither creative nor principled. He simply has no vision; if he does he has not articulated it. The others in his camp are at least equally as disadvantaged and even more so. Samir Geagea carries so much baggage from the civil war that he must never be given even the chance to lead while the Gemayels will never be able to escape from their self made image of religious and political dinosaurs. Mr. Jumblatt appears to be a liability to both sides.

Lebanon’s salvation is in modernity, democracy and a clearly defined bill of rights, i.e. a truly secular society. But how can we have a secular society when the Patriarch, the head of the largest Church in Lebanon behaves on a daily basis as a political chieftain, a non elected one for that matter. What hubris and what chutzpah. Why does he think that he is qualified and/or entitled to act as a political feudal lord when he is at best a priest, a man of the cloth who is supposed to offer some guidance to his flock on strictly spiritual basis? The Maronite patriarch and all the other Christian church leaders must, in the name of Christianity, renounce all semblances of political power and simply encourage their flock to develop an identity that transcends religion. If they fail to do that then they fail the basics of the Judeo Christian ethics, the egalitarianism of St Francis of Assisi.

And in all fairness the same is true of the Moslem Sunni Mufti. He must emphasis to his followers that to be a good citizen of a state does not diminish one’s ability to be a good observant Moslem. Religion is a personal matter and must not be brought into the public square. That is purely for the secular. And that is another fatal flaw in Hezbollah who have stated clearly their belief in Wilayat Al Faqih. It simply states that the head of the church is to dictate and rule. No one else is important. That is autocratic and dictatorial. That is the interpretation of Qom and not Najjaf.

Yet I will be willing to put at risk everything of value to me in order to protect the right of Hezbollah to the freedom of self expression and belief but not for the right to abuse this freedom by taking a whole country hostage. They can rationalize it any way that they want but no one has a monopoly on resistance and no one has a right to establish a state within a state through illegitimate force and foreign interfernece.

A democratic Lebanon shall rise from the ashes and the tyranny of hooliganism and vigilantes shall perish. Either the outright fall of the Syrian regime or the introduction of meaningful democratic changes ogre well for Lebanon. They would only mean the diminution of the HA power. But let us remember that that is not enough in itself for the establishment of a potentially vibrant democracy. We have to declaw the other clerics also, the Patriarch and the Mufti.

Share:

Comments

69 responses to “STL Funding and Lebanese Polity”

  1. beyondreason1022 Avatar
    beyondreason1022

    Great work Mr. Karam, what you depicted in your write up is very complex and thanks for mother France for leaving the Lebanese with a doctrine that gives rights to protect the so called each religion; in return the Lebanese believed this myth and ran with it. I suggest a solution, and might be naive, the formal colonial power reoccupy Lebanon and recreate a new Democratic formula for so called fake country Lebanon. 

    1. 5thDrawer Avatar

      France wouldn’t take it on. Once was enough. And now they are trying to figure out what to do with the idiots who fell into their country.

  2.  Avatar

    Great work Mr. Karam, what you depicted in your write up is very complex and thanks for mother France for leaving the Lebanese with a doctrine that gives rights to protect the so called each religion; in return the Lebanese believed this myth and ran with it. I suggest a solution, and might be naive, the formal colonial power reoccupy Lebanon and recreate a new Democratic formula for so called fake country Lebanon. 

  3.  Avatar

    Great work Mr. Karam, what you depicted in your write up is very complex and thanks for mother France for leaving the Lebanese with a doctrine that gives rights to protect the so called each religion; in return the Lebanese believed this myth and ran with it. I suggest a solution, and might be naive, the formal colonial power reoccupy Lebanon and recreate a new Democratic formula for so called fake country Lebanon. 

  4.  Avatar

    Great work Mr. Karam, what you depicted in your write up is very complex and thanks for mother France for leaving the Lebanese with a doctrine that gives rights to protect the so called each religion; in return the Lebanese believed this myth and ran with it. I suggest a solution, and might be naive, the formal colonial power reoccupy Lebanon and recreate a new Democratic formula for so called fake country Lebanon. 

    1.  Avatar

      France wouldn’t take it on. Once was enough. And now they are trying to figure out what to do with the idiots who fell into their country.

  5. MeYosemite Avatar
    MeYosemite

    Great article. I hope you are also read well in Lebanon. I suggest you publish your article few times and other places to reach out. A translation of it to arabic might come handy. Unfortunately Yalibnan only reaches few hundreds, most of them expatiates.

  6. MeYosemite Avatar
    MeYosemite

    Great article. I hope you are also read well in Lebanon. I suggest you publish your article few times and other places to reach out. A translation of it to arabic might come handy. Unfortunately Yalibnan only reaches few hundreds, most of them expatiates.

  7.  Avatar

    Great article. I hope you are also read well in Lebanon. I suggest you publish your article few times and other places to reach out. A translation of it to arabic might come handy. Unfortunately Yalibnan only reaches few hundreds, most of them expatiates.

  8.  Avatar

    Great article. I hope you are also read well in Lebanon. I suggest you publish your article few times and other places to reach out. A translation of it to arabic might come handy. Unfortunately Yalibnan only reaches few hundreds, most of them expatiates.

  9.  Avatar

    Great article. I hope you are also read well in Lebanon. I suggest you publish your article few times and other places to reach out. A translation of it to arabic might come handy. Unfortunately Yalibnan only reaches few hundreds, most of them expatiates.

  10. prophettt Avatar

    Ghassan,
    When religion, sects ,and politics  are combined into one equation, they become a receipt for disaster.
    When a society allows religious leaders to  claim to be the protectors of their sects/ followers,one would know why such society can not be secular.
    When political leaders seek the blessings of head of religious institutions, one should know that there is no hope in such  leaderships.
    When  criticism of a politician is considered an insult or an attack on an entire sect, one would know that such society is going backward.
    Religion can not give what it lacks.

     Yes I’m pessimistic and very discouraged that Lebanon can be a secular society.Lebanon has neither the leadership,nor the will  to transform Lebanon into a modern ,secular society.

    1. Ghassan Karam Avatar
      Ghassan Karam

      Prophettt
                   Yes the immediate future is not encouraging but one canot tell when a revolution in thinking will take place and what is the trigger for that.

      1. Like Iran after the fall of the last Shah it took 30 years for the educated Iranian class to demonstrate against the B. S propaganda of the religious class, so my conclusion is unless or until the young people do not get educated in science and technology and start using their brains and make their own thinking and figuring out that most religions suppress your freedom of thinking by instilling fear in you , that if you do not behave in a certain way as in food drinking and life style you will end up in hell , so they scare the shit out of you to make you abide by their doctrine and the weaker brains can not sort things out on their own because they do not have enough tools to figure things out and they give in to some body that studied one or two books all their life and memorized it well. It seems like most Egyptians are heading the way Iran went in 1978. Good look to you that voted for the fundamentalists,may you wait 50 years to realize what you have done taking the country back, and I feel sorry for all the young educated revolutionaries,your sacrifices were in vain .

        1. Sebouh80 Avatar

          Speaking of the Egyptian Revolution, I remember during this late Summer Al Jazeera English made an interview with the renowned Slovenian Marxist Philosopher Slavoj Zizek asking him about his thoughts as to where the Egyptian revolution is going from here. He bluntly said that it is fait accompli now meaning that the radical Islamists and the Egyptian Army will be the “gravediggers” of this revolution. Of course, the interviewer at that time did not believe him, but now looking back his interpretation seems correct.

        2. Sebouh80 Avatar

          Speaking of the Egyptian Revolution, I remember during this late Summer Al Jazeera English made an interview with the renowned Slovenian Marxist Philosopher Slavoj Zizek asking him about his thoughts as to where the Egyptian revolution is going from here. He bluntly said that it is fait accompli now meaning that the radical Islamists and the Egyptian Army will be the “gravediggers” of this revolution. Of course, the interviewer at that time did not believe him, but now looking back his interpretation seems correct.

  11.  Avatar

    Ghassan,
    When religion, sects ,and politics  are combined into one equation, they become a receipt for disaster.
    When a society allows religious leaders to  claim to be the protectors of their sects/ followers,You would know why such society can not be secular.
    When political leaders seek the blessings of head of religious institutions, You should know that there is no hope in such  leaderships.
    When  criticism of a politician is considered an insult or an attack on an entire sect, one would know that such society is going backward.
    Religion can not give what it lacks.

     Yes I’m pessimistic and very discouraged that Lebanon can ever be a secular society.We have no leadership,nor the will  to transform Lebanon into a modern ,secular society.

    1. Prophettt
                   Yes the immediate future is not encouraging but one canot tell when a revolution in thinking will take place and what is the trigger for that.

      1.  Avatar

        Like Iran after the fall of the last Shah it took 30 years for the educated Iranian class to demonstrate against the B. S propaganda of the religious class, so my conclusion is unless or until the young people do not get educated in science and technology and start using their brains and make their own thinking and figuring out that most religions suppress your freedom of thinking by instilling fear in you , that if you do not behave in a certain way as in food drinking and life style you will end up in hell , so they scare the shit out of you to make you abide by their doctrine and the weaker brains can not sort things out on their own because they do not have enough tools to figure things out and they give in to some body that studied one or two books all their life and memorized it well. It seems like most Egyptians are heading the way Iran went in 1978. Good look to you that voted for the fundamentalists,may you wait 50 years to realize what you have done taking the country back, and I feel sorry for all the young educated revolutionaries,your sacrifices were in vain .

        1.  Avatar

          Speaking of the Egyptian Revolution, I remember during this late Summer Al Jazeera English made an interview with the renowned Slovenian Marxist Philosopher Slavoj Zizek asking him about his thoughts as to where the Egyptian revolution is going from here. He bluntly said that it is fait accompli now meaning that the radical Islamists and the Egyptian Army will be the “gravediggers” of this revolution. Of course, the interviewer at that time did not believe him, but now looking back his interpretation seems correct.

  12.  Avatar

    Ghassan,
    When religion, sects ,and politics  are combined into one equation, they become a receipt for disaster.
    When a society allows religious leaders to  claim to be the protectors of their sects/ followers,You would know why such society can not be secular.
    When political leaders seek the blessings of head of religious institutions, You should know that there is no hope in such  leaderships.
    When  criticism of a politician is considered an insult or an attack on an entire sect, one would know that such society is going backward.
    Religion can not give what it lacks.

     Yes I’m pessimistic and very discouraged that Lebanon can ever be a secular society.We have no leadership,nor the will  to transform Lebanon into a modern ,secular society.

  13. A pleasure to read as always.

    May I suggest tweeting this to  @Najib_Mikati:twitter @HaririSaad:twitter   @Gen_Michel_Aoun:twitter  .

    1. 5thDrawer Avatar

      What if we ALL tweet it …. hmmm 

  14.  Avatar

    A pleasure to read as always.

    May I suggest tweeting this to  @Najib_Mikati:twitter @HaririSaad:twitter   @Gen_Michel_Aoun:twitter  .

    1.  Avatar

      What if we ALL tweet it …. hmmm 

  15. Sebouh80 Avatar

    Great article, but it needs futher analysis.

    Now ever since the creation of modern Lebanon in 1943 Lebanon’s ruling elites have made an unholly alliance with “Man of cloth” which has given them the core ideological justification to rule indefinitly
    The question that often comes to mind is that if the political class of March 14 and March 8 are totally incompetant then why the old order doesn’t just fade away when it has outlived its usefulness to society? Because the ruling class controls not only the way production takes place, but all the other institutions and relationships in society, whose structure helps the exploiters maintain their power.
    In a pretext of a book called “A contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx summarized the dynamic:
    In the social production of their life, men enter into definite, necessary relations which are independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real basis on which a legal and political superstructure rises, and to which definite forms of social consciousness correspond.The mode of production conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. Marx continued:At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or (and this is simply a legal expression of the same thing), with the property relations within which they have operated up to that time. These relations change from forms of development of the productive forces into their fetters. There then begins an epoch of social revolution. I felt that this small quote by Marx was somehow related to the theme of this article and this is why I have decided to post it.

    1. beyondreason1022 Avatar
      beyondreason1022

      Sorry Sebouh80 your further analysis is rhetorical and don’t think most on this board care or want lessons on Marxism, another failed theory!

      1. 5thDrawer Avatar

        I don’t think we can say all of it failed … and much of western society gleaned the better bits of it. Over time, of course. (A revolution in thinking in a time-period and society much different.) People like Stalin just used the worst bits or twisted the philosophy.

    2. 5thDrawer Avatar

      ‘Fetters’ (old english) ….1. restraints or controls … 2. a chain or shackle placed around prisoner’s ankle.
      The second meaning I am sure we know well, as it’s applied directly to those out of sync with society or the ruling entity – usually without their consent – removed after penance is paid or the prisoner dies.
      But used by Marx here, it fits better the restraints we (or the dictator) place on ourselves – over time – with various laws ‘for’ the societies to operate under. And, if one finds over time – like Marx – he is not a happy societal animal, one begins to complain about the restrictions placed on him – perhaps because he sees productivity of the whole society could be improved if a few of those controls were lifted.
      The ‘socialist’ philosophy of Marx was twisted in various ways by various groups of people eventually … Communism being it’s worst product in his previously despotic society … Unionism in democracies being the best; until perhaps some unions also found themselves controlled by despots, and ‘the people’ need to reverse that trend as well – in all social conscience.
      Understand your ‘fetters’, and you will become free.

      1. Sebouh80 Avatar

        5thDrawer,
        The common mistake people make is that they always associate Marxism with those 20th century monsters like Stalin and Mao. In fact, these tyrants were the anti thesis of Marxism and they had absolutely nothing to do with his philosophy whatsoever.
        Of course, I’m not here propagating Marxism or any other school of thought, but it is necessary to be objective as much as possible without resorting to the usual stereotyping.

        1. 5thDrawer Avatar

          Ok Sebouh … let’s get away from all the old ‘isims’. And while I hate to blog-in with long bits copied from other sites, here’s some of an article by George Friedman in Stratfor – Dec6th/11.  (Oh yah .. I hear the groans … another American Jew … but it’s full text (not here) is quite good actually. 🙂 The west, which by now includes people of all religions, actually does have a morality and really wishes for peace and prosperity, etc, blah blah…..  The problems between east and west, I think, is in where to place the religions in any given society. (And how to keep the ‘superiors’ in line.)
          ——–
          Democracy does not always bring secular democrats to power. To be more precise, democracy might yield a popular government, but the assumption that that government will support a liberal democratic constitution that conceives of human rights in the European or American sense is by no means certain. Unrest does not always lead to a revolution, a revolution does not always lead to a democracy, and a democracy does not always lead to a European- or American-style constitution.

          In Egypt today, just as it is unclear whether the Egyptian military will cede power in any practical sense, it is also unclear whether the Islamists can form a coherent government or how extreme such a government might be. And as we analyze the possibilities, it is important to note that this analysis really isn’t about Egypt. Rather, Egypt serves as a specimen to examine — a case study of an inherent contradiction in Western ideology and, ultimately, of an attempt to create a coherent foreign policy.

          Western countries, following the principles of the French Revolution, have two core beliefs. The first is the concept of national self-determination, the idea that all nations (and what the term “nation” means is complex in itself) have the right to determine for themselves the type of government they wish. The second is the idea of human rights, which are defined in several documents but are all built around the basic values of individual rights, particularly the right not only to participate in politics but also to be free in your private life from government intrusion.

          The first principle leads to the idea of the democratic foundations of the state. The second leads to the idea that the state must be limited in its power in certain ways and the individual must be free to pursue his own life in his own way within a framework of law limited by the principles of liberal democracy. The core assumption within this is that a democratic polity will yield a liberal constitution. This assumes that the majority of the citizens, left to their own devices, will favour the Enlightenment’s definition of human rights. This assumption is simple, but its application is tremendously complex. In the end, the premise of the Western project is that national self-determination, expressed through free elections, will create and sustain constitutional democracies.
          …….
          We do not know that the Islamist groups in Egypt will be successful, and we do not know what ideologies they will pursue, but they are Islamists and their views of man and moral nature are different from those of the European Enlightenment. Islamists have a principled disagreement with the West on a wide range of issues, from the relation of the individual to the community to the distinction between the public and private sphere. They oppose the military not only because it limits individual freedom but also because it violates their understanding of the regime’s moral purpose. The Islamists have a different and superior view of moral political life, just as Western constitutional democracies see their own values as superior.
          ……
          Washington, like all capitals, likes policies and hates political philosophy. The policies frequently fail to come to grips with reality because the policymakers don’t grasp the philosophical implications. The contradiction inherent in the human rights and the neoconservative approach is one thing, but the inability of the realists to define with rigour what the national interest is creates policy papers of monumental insignificance. Both sides create polemics as a substitute for thought.

          It’s in places like Egypt where this reality is driven home. One side really believed that Egypt would become like Minnesota. The other side knew it wouldn’t and devised a plan to be tough-minded — but not tough-minded enough to define what the point of the plan was. This is the crisis of U.S. foreign policy. It has always been there, but given American power, it is one that creates global instability. One part of the American regime wants to be just; the other part wants to be tough. Neither realizes that such a distinction is the root of the problem. Look at the American (and European) policy toward Egypt and I think you can see the predicament.
          The solution does not rest in slogans or ideology, or in soft versus hard power. It rests in clarity on both the moral mission of the regime and its ability to understand and wield power effectively. And this requires the study of political philosophy.
           Jean-Jacques Rousseau, with his distinction between the “general will” and the “will of all,” might be a good place to start. Or reading the common sense of Mark Twain might be a more pleasant substitute.

        2. 5thDrawer Avatar

          Ok Sebouh … let’s get away from all the old ‘isims’. And while I hate to blog-in with long bits copied from other sites, here’s some of an article by George Friedman in Stratfor – Dec6th/11.  (Oh yah .. I hear the groans … another American Jew … but it’s full text (not here) is quite good actually. 🙂 The west, which by now includes people of all religions, actually does have a morality and really wishes for peace and prosperity, etc, blah blah…..  The problems between east and west, I think, is in where to place the religions in any given society. (And how to keep the ‘superiors’ in line.)
          ——–
          Democracy does not always bring secular democrats to power. To be more precise, democracy might yield a popular government, but the assumption that that government will support a liberal democratic constitution that conceives of human rights in the European or American sense is by no means certain. Unrest does not always lead to a revolution, a revolution does not always lead to a democracy, and a democracy does not always lead to a European- or American-style constitution.

          In Egypt today, just as it is unclear whether the Egyptian military will cede power in any practical sense, it is also unclear whether the Islamists can form a coherent government or how extreme such a government might be. And as we analyze the possibilities, it is important to note that this analysis really isn’t about Egypt. Rather, Egypt serves as a specimen to examine — a case study of an inherent contradiction in Western ideology and, ultimately, of an attempt to create a coherent foreign policy.

          Western countries, following the principles of the French Revolution, have two core beliefs. The first is the concept of national self-determination, the idea that all nations (and what the term “nation” means is complex in itself) have the right to determine for themselves the type of government they wish. The second is the idea of human rights, which are defined in several documents but are all built around the basic values of individual rights, particularly the right not only to participate in politics but also to be free in your private life from government intrusion.

          The first principle leads to the idea of the democratic foundations of the state. The second leads to the idea that the state must be limited in its power in certain ways and the individual must be free to pursue his own life in his own way within a framework of law limited by the principles of liberal democracy. The core assumption within this is that a democratic polity will yield a liberal constitution. This assumes that the majority of the citizens, left to their own devices, will favour the Enlightenment’s definition of human rights. This assumption is simple, but its application is tremendously complex. In the end, the premise of the Western project is that national self-determination, expressed through free elections, will create and sustain constitutional democracies.
          …….
          We do not know that the Islamist groups in Egypt will be successful, and we do not know what ideologies they will pursue, but they are Islamists and their views of man and moral nature are different from those of the European Enlightenment. Islamists have a principled disagreement with the West on a wide range of issues, from the relation of the individual to the community to the distinction between the public and private sphere. They oppose the military not only because it limits individual freedom but also because it violates their understanding of the regime’s moral purpose. The Islamists have a different and superior view of moral political life, just as Western constitutional democracies see their own values as superior.
          ……
          Washington, like all capitals, likes policies and hates political philosophy. The policies frequently fail to come to grips with reality because the policymakers don’t grasp the philosophical implications. The contradiction inherent in the human rights and the neoconservative approach is one thing, but the inability of the realists to define with rigour what the national interest is creates policy papers of monumental insignificance. Both sides create polemics as a substitute for thought.

          It’s in places like Egypt where this reality is driven home. One side really believed that Egypt would become like Minnesota. The other side knew it wouldn’t and devised a plan to be tough-minded — but not tough-minded enough to define what the point of the plan was. This is the crisis of U.S. foreign policy. It has always been there, but given American power, it is one that creates global instability. One part of the American regime wants to be just; the other part wants to be tough. Neither realizes that such a distinction is the root of the problem. Look at the American (and European) policy toward Egypt and I think you can see the predicament.
          The solution does not rest in slogans or ideology, or in soft versus hard power. It rests in clarity on both the moral mission of the regime and its ability to understand and wield power effectively. And this requires the study of political philosophy.
           Jean-Jacques Rousseau, with his distinction between the “general will” and the “will of all,” might be a good place to start. Or reading the common sense of Mark Twain might be a more pleasant substitute.

    3. Ghassan Karam Avatar
      Ghassan Karam

      Sebouh,
                 The Grundrisse has been one of my favourite books for a long long time. Yes I am fond of the definition of economics as a mode of production much more than  the traditional mainstream idea that stresses allocation, maximization …A very useful book in this genre is the Great transformation by Polanyi.

  16.  Avatar

    Great article, but it needs futher analysis.

    Now ever since the creation of modern Lebanon in 1943 Lebanon’s ruling elites have made an unholly alliance with “Man of cloth” which has given them the core ideological justification to rule indefinitly
    The question that often comes to mind is that if the political class of March 14 and March 8 are totally incompetant then why the old order doesn’t just fade away when it has outlived its usefulness to society? Because the ruling class controls not only the way production takes place, but all the other institutions and relationships in society, whose structure helps the exploiters maintain their power.
    In a pretext of a book called “A contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx summarized the dynamic:
    In the social production of their life, men enter into definite, necessary relations which are independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real basis on which a legal and political superstructure rises, and to which definite forms of social consciousness correspond.The mode of production conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. Marx continued:At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or (and this is simply a legal expression of the same thing), with the property relations within which they have operated up to that time. These relations change from forms of development of the productive forces into their fetters. There then begins an epoch of social revolution. I felt that this small quote by Marx was somehow related to the theme of this article and this is why I have decided to post it.

    1.  Avatar

      Sorry Sebouh80 your further analysis is rhetorical and don’t think most on this board care or want lessons on Marxism, another failed theory!

      1.  Avatar

        I don’t think we can say all of it failed … and much of western society gleaned the better bits of it. Over time, of course. (A revolution in thinking in a time-period and society much different.) People like Stalin just used the worst bits or twisted them.

    2.  Avatar

      ‘Fetters’ (old english) ….1. restraints or controls … 2. a chain or shackle placed around prisoner’s ankle.
      The second meaning I am sure we know well, as it’s applied directly to those out of sync with society or the ruling entity – usually without their consent – removed after penance is paid or the prisoner dies.
      But used by Marx here, it fits better the restraints we (or the dictator) place on ourselves – over time – with various laws ‘for’ the societies to operate under. And, if one finds over time – like Marx – he is not a happy societal animal, one begins to complain about the restrictions placed on him – perhaps because he sees productivity of the whole society could be improved if a few of those controls were lifted.
      The ‘socialist’ philosophy of Marx was twisted in various ways by various groups of people eventually … Communism being it’s worst product in his previously despotic society … Unionism in democracies being the best; until perhaps some unions also found themselves controlled by despots, and ‘the people’ need to reverse that trend as well – in all social conscience.
      Understand your ‘fetters’, and you will become free.

      1.  Avatar

        5thDrawer,
        The common mistake people make is that they always associate Marxism with those 20th century monsters like Stalin and Mao. In fact, these tyrants were the anti thesis of Marxism and they had absolutely nothing to do with his philosophy whatsoever.
        Of course, I’m not here propagating Marxism or any other school of thought, but it is necessary to be objective as much as possible without resorting to the usual stereotyping.

        1.  Avatar

          Ok Sebouh … let’s get away from all the old ‘isims’. And while I hate to blog-in with long bits copied from other sites, here’s some of an article by George Friedman in Stratfor – Dec6th/11.  (Oh yah .. I hear the groans … another American Jew … but it’s full text (not here) is quite good actually. 🙂 The west, which by now includes people of all religions, actually does have a morality and really wishes for peace and prosperity, etc, blah blah…..  The problems between east and west, I think, is in where to place the religions in any given society. (And how to keep the ‘superiors’ in line.)
          ——–
          Democracy does not always bring secular democrats to power. To be more precise, democracy might yield a popular government, but the assumption that that government will support a liberal democratic constitution that conceives of human rights in the European or American sense is by no means certain. Unrest does not always lead to a revolution, a revolution does not always lead to a democracy, and a democracy does not always lead to a European- or American-style constitution.

          In Egypt today, just as it is unclear whether the Egyptian military will cede power in any practical sense, it is also unclear whether the Islamists can form a coherent government or how extreme such a government might be. And as we analyze the possibilities, it is important to note that this analysis really isn’t about Egypt. Rather, Egypt serves as a specimen to examine — a case study of an inherent contradiction in Western ideology and, ultimately, of an attempt to create a coherent foreign policy.

          Western countries, following the principles of the French Revolution, have two core beliefs. The first is the concept of national self-determination, the idea that all nations (and what the term “nation” means is complex in itself) have the right to determine for themselves the type of government they wish. The second is the idea of human rights, which are defined in several documents but are all built around the basic values of individual rights, particularly the right not only to participate in politics but also to be free in your private life from government intrusion.

          The first principle leads to the idea of the democratic foundations of the state. The second leads to the idea that the state must be limited in its power in certain ways and the individual must be free to pursue his own life in his own way within a framework of law limited by the principles of liberal democracy. The core assumption within this is that a democratic polity will yield a liberal constitution. This assumes that the majority of the citizens, left to their own devices, will favour the Enlightenment’s definition of human rights. This assumption is simple, but its application is tremendously complex. In the end, the premise of the Western project is that national self-determination, expressed through free elections, will create and sustain constitutional democracies……..We do not know that the Islamist groups in Egypt will be successful, and we do not know what ideologies they will pursue, but they are Islamists and their views of man and moral nature are different from those of the European Enlightenment. Islamists have a principled disagreement with the West on a wide range of issues, from the relation of the individual to the community to the distinction between the public and private sphere. They oppose the military not only because it limits individual freedom but also because it violates their understanding of the regime’s moral purpose. The Islamists have a different and superior view of moral political life, just as Western constitutional democracies see their own values as superior…….Washington, like all capitals, likes policies and hates political philosophy. The policies frequently fail to come to grips with reality because the policymakers don’t grasp the philosophical implications. The contradiction inherent in the human rights and the neoconservative approach is one thing, but the inability of the realists to define with rigour what the national interest is creates policy papers of monumental insignificance. Both sides create polemics as a substitute for thought.

          It’s in places like Egypt where this reality is driven home. One side really believed that Egypt would become like Minnesota. The other side knew it wouldn’t and devised a plan to be tough-minded — but not tough-minded enough to define what the point of the plan was. This is the crisis of U.S. foreign policy. It has always been there, but given American power, it is one that creates global instability. One part of the American regime wants to be just; the other part wants to be tough. Neither realizes that such a distinction is the root of the problem. Look at the American (and European) policy toward Egypt and I think you can see the predicament.
          The solution does not rest in slogans or ideology, or in soft versus hard power. It rests in clarity on both the moral mission of the regime and its ability to understand and wield power effectively. And this requires the study of political philosophy.
           Jean-Jacques Rousseau, with his distinction between the “general will” and the “will of all,” might be a good place to start. Or reading the common sense of Mark Twain might be a more pleasant substitute.

    3. Sebouh,
                 The Grundrisse has been one of my favourite books for a long long time. Yes I am fond of the definition of economics as a mode of production much more than  the traditional mainstream idea that stresses allocation, maximization …A very useful book in this genre is the Great transformation by Polanyi.

  17. Dear Ghassan,

    I will let you know on a secret lebanon need a leader like you… Great article…

  18. Dear Ghassan,

    I will let know on a secret lebanon need a leader like you… Great article…

  19. josephphdman Avatar
    josephphdman

    the lebaneese people should ask for mikati resignation , because he is not doing his job protecting all lebanon territory and sovreingnity , and he is not working on confisticating all illegal weapons in lebanon , from all foreigners and domestic

  20.  Avatar

    the lebaneese people should ask for mikati resignation , because he is not doing his job protecting all lebanon territory and sovreingnity , and he is not working on confisticating all illegal weapons in lebanon , from all foreigners and domestic

  21.  Avatar

    the lebaneese people should ask for mikati resignation , because he is not doing his job protecting all lebanon territory and sovreingnity , and he is not working on confisticating all illegal weapons in lebanon , from all foreigners and domestic

  22. antar2011 Avatar

    this article is good.

    one note though, most posters here live in a secular non arab country that has been successful in seperating religion and politics. i would like to stress the results of such move, in terms of social health….

    i don’t know about christianity but i know that the nature of Islam (proper islam) cannot be restricted to the matters of faiths…it’s more then that, it is a whole lifestyle… Hence I have put in brackets “proper islam” because unfortunately very few of muslims follow proper islam and very few christians follow proper christianity including the sheikhs and priests.

    there is a very successful example in history when religion mixed with every aspect of life, it was in the arab peinsula and beyond after the time of the last prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him….but then proper islam was practised.

    i really do not think it is impossible to mix religio and politics, you just need the right pple to do so….do we have the right pple to do so?

    that question is yet to be answered.

    in the meantime, the only alternative is……..secularism with all of its social ills.

    1. I heard Grand Mufti Qabbani removed the Mufti of Akkar? why? Is it because he defended the Syrian Guests?
      It took me 20 minutes to come up with

      “A pleasure to read as always.
      May I suggest tweeting this to  @Najib_Mikati:twitter @HaririSaad:twitter   @Gen_Michel_Aoun:twitter  .”

      I though about mentioning the long list of failed and catastrophic secular leaders & the many examples of positive and effective religious rule, but the more I re-read the article, the more it seemed to be about failures of religious & secular leaders, and less about secularism.The problem with secularism is that it is absolute, to the point that it becomes a religion in itself. This is too extreme for my liking. One can’t discount the great contribution religion has made to the advancement of society, especailly the concepts of justice, respect, ethics, human rights & equality. This means that technically,  secularism is not practised by western nations i.e. Bush / Rumsfield / Blair / Lieberman / Costello / Abbot / (the list goes on) are all examples of senior members of government that “khabis” between the two & allowed to get away with it. 

      The time of the caliphs al Rashidun, were a prime example of how religion genuinely enhanced a society and lifted them from corruption. However as you rightly stated this was heavily dependant on the Leaders. 
      Genius equal to that of Umar bin Khatab is (very very very) x10^99999999999 rare. Some might say impossible.I agree with the concept of citizenship, belonging irrelevant of ones religious, economic, social or ethnic background. Although this is a part of secularism, by itself it does not constitute secular rule. 
      Antar you are right, until we have capable people, it is either secularism or what we have now. Both are “dodgy” and should only be considered as form/falsework but it may be necessary before we can pour the desired slab. Which should be a well calculated mixture of selcuar & religious principles.

      1. 5thDrawer Avatar

        There have, as you note, super-rarely been any ‘benevolent dictators’ good for all their people … and even then, if one argued with them, one might find the salt mines to be a new home.

      2. antar2011 Avatar

        i guess you are right…it is the best alternative in our times.

    2. 5thDrawer Avatar

      Well Antar .. Christianity is also about lifestyle … but as you note, no-one is a Jesus or a Mohammad doing it ‘properly’. And neither of those thought the Jews were living a godly life, I suppose either. And every translation of their words has been scrambled ever since. By mere mortals.
       Most often by mortals wanting to be little gods on this planet.
      It took a while for most Christians to get past the concept of letting the ‘faith-leader’ run their governments or believing in one human’s ability to run government for all of the people’s needs – on this or any other planet.  So, by various (not always nice) ways of explaining that to the ‘faith leaders’, they have largely decided to let humans govern countries by their own wishes (faulty or not) and allow everyone to deal individually with the problems between God and themselves, and their lifestyles.
      It did not stop the ‘faithful’ from speaking their theories, and even allowed them to try to teach their versions, but it kept them out of the business of government … and that government business stayed out of the temples (when it didn’t hurt anyone else, at least.)
      Muslims are still working on that separation it seems. Although one would think they have certainly experienced the variety of ‘faith-leaders’ and the various translations of thoughts in ancient texts which Jews and Christians do and did, they have ALL yet to tell those ‘leaders’ they should stick to teaching whichever version of ‘the faith’, but stay out of the damn governing bits – and let individuals decide how they will meet their God with what they have done in their lives held up to scrutiny.
      Same goes for those places, of course, with other gods still hanging around. Humans DO seem to have collected a few over the 1.5 mil-history.
      Eventually, one must say; ‘Get off our backs!’.

      1. antar2011 Avatar

        i understand where you are coming from and i do agree it is the best possible alternative atm to a dictatorship. but i wish sometimes that we don’t get carried away with advocating for a secular society while ignoring the fact that secularism has its many negatives…in fact i have many questions about its application….especially its implication on society in general.

        i would also even add that under a secular society, total freedom is a mirage because instead God laying the law down , it is fellow human beings who may get in power through pple’s votes but it does not mean that they are the right choice [propaganda/media/money power] to lay down laws to govern a civil society.

        anyways…

    3. antar2011
                    Is it possible to be an observant Moslem and yet be a productive member of a secular polity ? Of course it is. Lebanon is an excellent example of that. All that secularism will change in Lebanon is to make the decision making process outside the reach of the clergy. 

      1. antar2011 Avatar

        Ghassan

        it is the best alternative at the moment. yes.

        it is a duty on every muslim to be observent AND be productive…while respecting diversity.

      2. prophettt Avatar

        Ghassan,
        I agree with you that a a person can be an observant of a Islam or Christianity,yet be  part of secular society.
        As we have discussed in a previous thread, there is a need to explain to people that being secular does not necessarily  mean non believer or  an atheist.It is a common misconception  among most Lebanese, Christians and Muslim alike, that The term secular  is mistakenly understood as non faithful.
        Intellectuals like yourself,and secular people  should put more effort in explaining this misconception in order to ease those fears among believers and observant that a secular society is not a threat to people who  want to practice their faith as long as this practice does not interfere or impose its views on others. 

      3. antar2011 Avatar

        but i do not see that the clergy make the decisions…the mufti does not have influence on all of the sunnis…this i guess applies to other sects/mazhab.

  23.  Avatar

    this article is good.

    one note though, most posters here live in a secular non arab country that has been successful in seperating religion and politics. i would like to stress the results of such move, in terms of social health….

    i don’t know about christianity but i know that the nature of Islam (proper islam) cannot be restricted to the matters of faiths…it’s more then that, it is a whole lifestyle… Hence I have put in brackets “proper islam” because unfortunately very few of muslims follow proper islam and very few christians follow proper christianity including the sheikhs and priests.

    there is a very successful example in history when religion mixed with every aspect of life, it was in the arab peinsula and beyond after the time of the last prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him….but then proper islam was practised.

    i really do not think it is impossible to mix religio and politics, you just need the right pple to do so….do we have the right pple to do so?

    that question is yet to be answered.

    in the meantime, the only alternative is……..secularism with all of its social ills.

    1.  Avatar

      I heard Grand Mufti Qabbani removed the Mufti of Akkar? why? Is it because he defended the Syrian Guests?
      It took me 20 minutes to come up with

      “A pleasure to read as always.
      May I suggest tweeting this to  @Najib_Mikati:twitter @HaririSaad:twitter   @Gen_Michel_Aoun:twitter  .”

      I though about mentioning the long list of failed and catastrophic secular leaders & the many examples of positive and effective religious rule, but the more I re-read the article, the more it seemed to be about failures of religious & secular leaders, and less about secularism.The problem with secularism is that it is absolute, to the point that it becomes a religion in itself. This is too extreme for my liking. One can’t discount the great contribution religion has made to the advancement of society, especailly the concepts of justice, respect, ethics, human rights & equality. This means that technically,  secularism is not practised by western nations i.e. Bush / Rumsfield / Blair / Lieberman / Costello / Abbot / (the list goes on) are all examples of senior members of government that “khabis” between the two & allowed to get away with it. 

      The time of the caliphs al Rashidun, were a prime example of how religion genuinely enhanced a society and lifted them from corruption. However as you rightly stated this was heavily dependant on the Leaders. 
      Genius equal to that of Umar bin Khatab is (very very very) x10^99999999999 rare. Some might say impossible.I agree with the concept of citizenship, belonging irrelevant of ones religious, economic, social or ethnic background. Although this is a part of secularism, by itself it does not constitute secular rule. 
      Antar you are right, until we have capable people, it is either secularism or what we have not. Both are “dodgy” and should only be considered as form/falsework but it may be necessary before we can pour the real structure.

      1.  Avatar

        There have, as you note, super-rarely been any ‘benevolent dictators’ good for all their people … and even then, if one argued, one might find the salt mines to be a new home.

      2.  Avatar

        i guess you are right…it is the best alternative in our times.

    2.  Avatar

      I heard Grand Mufti Qabbani removed the Mufti of Akkar? why? Is it because he defended the Syrian Guests?
      It took me 20 minutes to come up with

      “A pleasure to read as always.
      May I suggest tweeting this to  @Najib_Mikati:twitter @HaririSaad:twitter   @Gen_Michel_Aoun:twitter  .”

      I though about mentioning the long list of failed and catastrophic secular leaders & the many examples of positive and effective religious rule, but the more I re-read the article, the more it seemed to be about failures of religious & secular leaders, and less about secularism.The problem with secularism is that it is absolute, to the point that it becomes a religion in itself. This is too extreme for my liking. One can’t discount the great contribution religion has made to the advancement of society, especailly the concepts of justice, respect, ethics, human rights & equality. This means that technically,  secularism is not practised by western nations i.e. Bush / Rumsfield / Blair / Lieberman / Costello / Abbot / (the list goes on) are all examples of senior members of government that “khabis” between the two & allowed to get away with it. 

      The time of the caliphs al Rashidun, were a prime example of how religion genuinely enhanced a society and lifted them from corruption. However as you rightly stated this was heavily dependant on the Leaders. 
      Genius equal to that of Umar bin Khatab is (very very very) x10^99999999999 rare. Some might say impossible.I agree with the concept of citizenship, belonging irrelevant of ones religious, economic, social or ethnic background. Although this is a part of secularism, by itself it does not constitute secular rule. 
      Antar you are right, until we have capable people, it is either secularism or what we have not. Both are “dodgy” and should only be considered as form/falsework but it may be necessary before we can pour the real structure.

    3.  Avatar

      Well Antar .. Christianity is also about lifestyle … but as you note, no-one is a Jesus or a Mohammad doing it ‘properly’. And neither of those thought the Jews were living a godly life, I suppose either. And every translation of their words has been scrambled ever since. By mere mortals.
       Most often by mortals wanting to be little gods on this planet.It took a while for most Christians to get past the concept of letting the ‘faith-leader’ run their governments or believing in one human’s ability to run government for all of the people’s needs – on this or any other planet.  So, by various (not always nice) ways of explaining that to the ‘faith leaders’, they have largely decided to let humans govern countries by their own wishes (faulty or not) and allow everyone to deal individually with the problems between God and themselves, and their lifestyles.It did not stop the ‘faithful’ from speaking their theories, and even allowed them to try to teach their versions, but it kept them out of the business of government … and that government business stayed out of the temples (when it didn’t hurt anyone else, at least.)Muslims are still working on that separation it seems. Although one would think they have certainly experienced the variety of ‘faith-leaders’ and the various translations of thoughts in ancient texts which Jews and Christians do and did, they have ALL yet to tell those ‘leaders’ they should stick to teaching whichever version of ‘the faith’, but stay out of the damn governing bits – and let individuals decide how they will meet their God with what they have done in their lives held up to scrutiny.Same goes for those places, of course, with other gods still hanging around. Humans DO seem to have collected a few over the 1.5 mil-history.Eventually, one must say; ‘Get off our backs!’.

    4.  Avatar

      Well Antar .. Christianity is also about lifestyle … but as you note, no-one is a Jesus or a Mohammad doing it ‘properly’. And neither of those thought the Jews were living a godly life, I suppose either. And every translation of their words has been scrambled ever since. By mere mortals.
       Most often by mortals wanting to be little gods on this planet.It took a while for most Christians to get past the concept of letting the ‘faith-leader’ run their governments or believing in one human’s ability to run government for all of the people’s needs – on this or any other planet.  So, by various (not always nice) ways of explaining that to the ‘faith leaders’, they have largely decided to let humans govern countries by their own wishes (faulty or not) and allow everyone to deal individually with the problems between God and themselves, and their lifestyles.It did not stop the ‘faithful’ from speaking their theories, and even allowed them to try to teach their versions, but it kept them out of the business of government … and that government business stayed out of the temples (when it didn’t hurt anyone else, at least.)Muslims are still working on that separation it seems. Although one would think they have certainly experienced the variety of ‘faith-leaders’ and the various translations of thoughts in ancient texts which Jews and Christians do and did, they have ALL yet to tell those ‘leaders’ they should stick to teaching whichever version of ‘the faith’, but stay out of the damn governing bits – and let individuals decide how they will meet their God with what they have done in their lives held up to scrutiny.Same goes for those places, of course, with other gods still hanging around. Humans DO seem to have collected a few over the 1.5 mil-history.Eventually, one must say; ‘Get off our backs!’.

      1.  Avatar

        i understand where you are coming from and i do agree it is the best possible alternative atm to a dictatorship. but i wish sometimes that we don’t get carried away with advocating for a secular society while ignoring the fact that secularism has its many negatives…in fact i have many questions about its application….especially its implication on society in general.

        i would also even add that under a secular society, total freedom is a mirage because instead God laying the law down , it is fellow human beings. 

        anyways…

    5. antar2011
                    Is it possible to be an observant Moslem and yet be a productive member of a secular polity ? Of course it is. Lebanon is an excellent example of that. All that secularism will change in Lebanon is to make the decision making process outside the reach of the clergy. 

      1.  Avatar

        Ghassan

        it is the best alternative at the moment. yes.

        it is a duty on every muslim to be observent AND be productive…while respecting diversity.

      2.  Avatar

        Ghassan,
        I agree with you that a a person can be an observant of a Islam or Christianity,yet be  part of secular society.
        As we have discussed in a previous thread, there is a need to explain to people that being secular does not necessarily  mean non believer or  an atheist.It is a common misconception  among most Lebanese, Christians and Muslim alike, that The term secular  is mistakenly understood as non faithful.
        Intellectuals like yourself,and secular people  should put more effort in explaining this misconception in order to ease those fears among believers and observant that a secular society is not a threat to people who  want to practice their faith as long as this practice does not interfere or impose its views on others. 

      3.  Avatar

        but i do not see that the clergy make the decisions…the mufti does not have influence on all of the sunnis…this i guess applies to other sects/mazhab.

  24. jahn jahn Avatar

    yalla fight on aron arab von arbeit

  25. jahn jahn Avatar

    But Lebanon has not won except a small moral victory.  yalla fight on aron arab von arbeit

Leave a Reply