Beware of Federalism in Lebanon!

If some political and media voices within the camp that once prided itself on calling itself the “axis of defiance” are unconcerned by the destruction of yet more villages as they brandish irresponsible, demagogic slogans, other voices on the opposite side are no less reckless in their hasty calls for peace and normalization. Indifferent to the occupation of more than sixty villages in southern Lebanon, they rush toward any ill-considered initiative simply to condemn the irresponsible conduct that dragged Lebanon into war!

Between irresponsible defiance and surrender at any cost, the country falls prey to hollow demagogic posturing. One side is prepared to bring about further destruction under slogans that the latest war has rendered obsolete. The other is prepared to retell history, from the civil war to the present, through the prism of right and wrong, and use that interpretation to promote an impossible peace and a normalization whose time has not come.

It is a strange paradox: some are prepared to lead the country into military adventures whose failure has been demonstrated by the collapse of the “balance of deterrence,” and to do so over the mangled remains of the dead. Others are prepared to push the country toward makeshift solutions whose effectiveness in confronting Israeli occupation has rarely been demonstrated, as the Oslo experience illustrates, again over the mangled remains of the dead. On one side, people are fuel for a project that extends beyond national borders. On the other, they are victims whose fate is of no concern.

Amid these competing media narratives, some have resurfaced with their political ideas, once again advocating federalism and attempting to portray it as the political arrangement best suited to Lebanon’s troubled system, capable of resolving every problem that has accumulated from all directions. They forget, or perhaps deliberately overlook, that federalism cannot cure the sectarian affliction plaguing Lebanon’s political system. On the contrary, it would entrench it, making sectarian identity the defining reference point for the cantons and confessional regions that federalists intend to establish, without any regard for the diversity that characterizes most Lebanese districts.

Ahead of anticipated political and media initiatives promoting federalism in Lebanon, it is worth recalling that this arrangement is not the most suitable for Lebanon and its people. Nor would it be capable of resolving their chronic problems: the state monopoly on weapons, decisions of war and peace, foreign policy, defense policy, and the many other contentious issues that have troubled the Lebanese for decades.

Admittedly, Lebanon’s political system is struggling, and certain political actors have abused the formula of consociational democracy, using it as a pretext to systematically obstruct the implementation of the Constitution and the functioning of state institutions. It is also true that the state remains the weakest actor among the forces exercising influence in the country, making it imperative to find political solutions that can break this vicious cycle.

But it is equally true that a federal project would further weaken the state. It would allow cantons to seek external backing, enabling them to assert their power over other cantons, weaken them, and perhaps even “pounce” on them in one way or another. This would make it even more difficult than it is today for the state to maintain control over foreign and defense policy.

The existing disagreements over foreign and defense policy would not be resolved by a federal system. Instead, such a system would exacerbate them, further complicating Lebanon’s internal divisions. Federalism would therefore amount to little more than a headlong attempt to evade the real problems, without providing genuine solutions to Lebanon’s mounting difficulties.

Federalists will probably respond to this article with considerable hostility. That is what they have consistently done since they began promoting their ill-conceived idea. There is nothing wrong with that, provided political debate remains focused on ideas rather than personal attacks. But perhaps the coming period will require them to intensify their political and media presence to promote their federal project, even if their methods fail to meet the standards expected of any calm political debate.

Lebanon’s current political system is bad, that much is true. But one thing is certain: a federal system would be even worse.