Is there space for peaceful coexistence between nations?

At the end of just another turbulent year for Lebanon, the MENA region and the world in general, it is time to reflect upon the recent developments and to contemplate the perspectives of the future. For this precious annual exercise, the Friends of Kamal Joumblatt Association and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung invite you once again and today already for the sixth time. I would like to welcome you all on behalf of FES to this event in which we will aim at providing a profound analysis of possible alternatives to the military conflicts in the region which have caused destruction and division rather than leading to construction and conciliation within a nation, within a state.

In a world which becomes ever more complicated and where the political order seems to disintegrate, populist movements and leaders have offered simple solutions. Instead of tolerating, they are blaming “the other”; instead of integration and inclusion, they argue for segregation and exclusion.

In these dangerous times of centrifugal forces, is there still a space for a peaceful coexistence between nations, but first and foremost within a nation? And how could such a coexistence look like, especially in highly fragmented countries like so many in this tormented region? How will citizens who belong to different communities feel that they belong to a common state and a nation?

Middle East

One of the options that have been offered here is Federalism. This seems to be an obvious solution as it promises a more immediate level of belonging and a political, economic and even cultural autonomy to the various communities. In fact, though, it is not so simple: When we talk about Federalism or Administrative Decentralization, we speak about a political and a technical TOOL for the governance and the management of the state. Neither Federalism nor Decentralization will AS SUCH solve the crises of Lebanon or any other country of the region, and in fact of any country worldwide.

What is needed instead is a common understanding, an agreement and the political will of stakeholders about HOW a society, how a nation wishes to live together. And if we want to deconstruct this further, we will have to ask ourselves two even far more fundamental questions before: First: Do we believe that all subjects living on a given territory belong to a nation? And second: The most important question to be asked is not HOW we want to live together but WHETHER we want to live together at all.

In political science, we often speak about a social contract and that in times of crises, usually in times of economic and social crises, this social contract of the different strata of society has to be re-defined, to be re-shaped and to be re-organized. Accordingly, we could also talk about a political contract which needs to be agreed upon or which needs to be – especially in post-conflict scenarios – re-developed from scratch.

Only if we are sure about ourselves as a nation, about the CONTENT of our national identity, can we start debating the FORM in which this nation state should be constructed.

I believe that it is of utmost importance that we discuss very frankly about the conditions under which any kind of a non-centralist state would have a fair chance of success. The presentation of our conference today states very clearly that – among many other aspects – we need to analyse and to critically reflect upon the obstacles and risks of adopting any form of a federalist or decentralized system as they might indeed entail the possibility of fuelling civil strife motivated by sectarianism, confessional or racial segregation. We have to make sure that the imperative of “doing no harm” is respected.

The concept of “Do-no-harm” is widely used in humanitarian contexts and tries to prevent aid operations from inadvertently contributing to escalating a crisis and exacerbating the root causes of the conflict rather than achieving the intended goal of recovery and reconstruction. Or as we say in German: “Well intended is not necessarily well done”!

Mideast Syria

When we speak about any form of a decentralized governance structure, and especially so in highly fragmented and therefore potentially fragile societies, we are confronted with a principal and substantial dilemma: How do we allow for social diversity among communities while at the same time not only preserving the unity of the state but strengthening it? We want to bring the state closer to its citizens by giving municipalities and regions more autonomy, at least fiscally if not politically. The alienation of the state – or of supra-national institutions like the EU – from its citizens has given rise to unprecedented populist movements and politicians around the world. On the other hand, we do need the central state and we do not want to weaken it by decentralizing.

Therefore, one important component of the discussion must be inclusion. While we want to allow for diversity, we do not want to create division. At a conference which the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung organized in 2014 about the Taif Agreement, the Swiss Ambassador Francois Barras explained the success of the federalist model of Switzerland with a striking example: He described the civil war in 1847 and how the Protestants won against the Catholic cantons. A key element for the success of federalism in Switzerland, Ambassador Barras said, was that the winners included the losers into the post-war composition of the federation. If we want to succeed in whatever form of state, we have to include all parts of society and provide them with a political space.

At times, a political observer of Lebanon might get the impression that federalism or decentralization are used as a means to pursue the interests of one group against the other rather than as a means to balance out the needs of different regions and to find the best way to efficiently govern the state in the interest of the entire population.

[Is there an] alternative to political confrontation or even military conflicts which have proven time and again not to be able to be a solution. Now if that is the case, then federalism or decentralization as a peaceful solution to conflicts must try to bridge the divide, must be a way to provide space for a community while at the same time share common interests. In Lebanon, power sharing will mean the balancing of political interests of all communities on a national AS WELL AS on a federal level! How would – otherwise – federalism play out in the capital Beirut where every third Lebanese lives, or in any other of the major cities like Tripoli, Saida or others? It is an illusion to believe that federalism can be used as a tool to serve the interests of one community only. You only have to look at the electoral districts: 16 out of 26 districts are mixed.

The political will to achieve a peaceful solution will lead to finding the right way – not the other way round. I would wish that this understanding would guide us through a day of enriching insights and fruitful discussions (…).

(*) Resident representative of Frederich-Ebert in Lebanon. 

**) Speech delivered in the conference organized by Kamal Joumblatt Friends Association and Frederich- Ebert in Crowne Plaza, Beirut, on December 6, 2016.