MONGABAY.COM
Mongabay.com seeks to raise interest in and appreciation of wild lands and wildlife, while examining the impact of emerging trends in climate, technology, economics, and finance on conservation and development (more)
WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
|
|
Lebanon
Index
A Muslim, a Druze, and a Christian, representing the
three major sects in Lebanon
IN LATE 1987, after more than a dozen years of civil strife during
which as many as 130,000 people may have died, Lebanese politics
had become synonymous with bloodshed, and political power had come
to be equated with firepower. Within this context, it was sometimes
difficult to recall that Lebanon was once considered by some to be
a model of pluralistic democracy in the Arab world.
Despite the widespread erosion of law and order and the reduced
effectiveness of the central authorities, in 1987 some vestiges of
the traditional political system persisted. The president, as
provided for in the Constitution, had been elected by the
legislature, or Chamber of Deputies. He presided over a carefully
selected cabinet, commanded the Lebanese Armed Forces, and
supervised the civil service. But at this point, much of the
resemblance between this framework and the pre-1975 Civil War
national-level political structure ceased. In 1987 the president
controlled only a small portion of the country. The members of the
Chamber of Deputies had been elected in 1972--as of 1987 the latest
election--and some of the deputies no longer even lived in Lebanon.
Many of the traditional zuama (sing.,
zaim--see Glossary)
of the various sects who had formerly participated in
Lebanon's many cabinets were dead. The confessionally split
Lebanese Armed Forces were only the sixth or seventh most powerful
military organization in the nation. And the civil service, which
still collected taxes and provided services to some parts of the
country, did so at greatly diminished levels.
Lebanon's political traditions--including its internal
contradictions--can be traced back several centuries. Under Ottoman
rule (1516-1916) Lebanon's multisectarian character was already in
evidence as powerful
Druze (see Glossary),
Muslim, and
Maronite (see Glossary)
feudal lords extended their control over certain
tracts of land in
Mount Lebanon (see Glossary).
They enjoyed a high
degree of autonomy as long as taxes were paid to the Ottoman
authorities. Likewise, under the short period of Egyptian control
(1832-40), rule was relatively tolerant, both within the region and
toward outside powers. It was during this era that European
penetration helped Maronite Christians make gains against Druze
landlords, and after the British and the Ottoman Turks drove out
the Egyptians, Druze-Maronite antipathy turned violent. At the
urging of the European powers, in 1842 the Ottoman Empire divided
Mount Lebanon administratively, creating a christian district in
the north and an area under Druze control in the south. But this
system, called the Double Qaimaqamate, did not change the fact that
portions of the various populations were still integrated. For
example, Maronite peasants worked for Druze overlords. In 1860, in
response to peasant revolts, Maronite-Druze animosities again
boiled over. Although both sides suffered, about 10,000 Maronites
were massacred at the hands of the Druzes. As a result, at the
instigation of the European powers, the Ottomans reunited the two
sections of Mount Lebanon, this time under a single, non-Lebanese,
Christian mutasarrif (governor) appointed by the Ottoman
Sultar, assisted by a multisectarian council.
After World War I and the defeat of the Ottomans by the Allied
Powers, the League of Nations granted France mandate authority over
Greater Syria (see Glossary),
an area that included present-day
Lebanon. As a result of Lebanon's years under the French Mandate
(1920-43), the Constitution enacted in 1926 is fashioned after that
of the French Third Republic. Article 95, however, is unique in
that it provides for "balanced"
confessional (see Glossary)
representation in government. In 1943 the provisions of this
article were spelled out more clearly by unwritten agreements
between Maronite and
Sunni (see Glossary)
leaders. These agreements
came to be known as the National Pact. The balancing advocated in
the National Pact was meant to be provisional and was to be
discarded as the nation moved away from
confessionalism (see Glossary).
This movement, however, never occurred; in fact, in the years
between the National Pact and the start of the 1975 Civil War,
sectarianism became even more entrenched, and the principle of
balancing, which created multiple power centers, frequently
inhibited the political process. Basic philosophical differences on
political outlook often separated the various parties. Bickering
among elites was common, not only between Christians and Muslims
but also among sects within each religious group. Also during this
period, the political system of zuama clientelism, whereby
powerful heads of families (similar to the feudal warlords of the
Ottoman era) who wielded considerable political influence and
dispensed patronage, became institutionalized. As a consequence,
loyalty to subnational entities, such as family or sect, took
precedence over allegiance to the state.
Other problems impeded the smooth operation of government.
Chief among them was that the National Pact was based on the 1932
census, which enumerated Christians (including even those who had
emigrated) to Muslims in a six-to-five ratio. Because this census
was never updated officially, the growing number of Muslims,
especially
Shias (see Glossary),
was not taken into account, thus
giving Christians disproportionate political power. Many observers
believe that it was the inability of Lebanon's leaders to agree on
a new power-sharing formula in line with demographic realities that
led to the 1975 Civil War.
Although it no longer monopolized the means of coercion, the
government survived this conflict. The destruction and brutality
wrought by both sides were catastrophic, but, except for a few
small extremist groups, none of the armed militias demanded the
abolition of the state or the abrogation of the Constitution;
instead, many of them called for meaningful reform.
To some extent, the state and governmental institutions were
able to survive through the direct intervention of external powers.
In 1976 Ilyas Sarkis was elected president while much of the
country was subject to Syrian presence. Then, in 1982 Bashir
Jumayyil (also cited as Gemayel) was elected president largely
under pressure from Israel, whose forces occupied most of southern
Lebanon and Beirut. Because of the presence of a variety of armed
militias throughout the country and the resulting "cantonization"
of the state, in 1987 the term government had relevance only
within the context of sectarian politics.
Data as of December 1987
|
|