Has anybody seen the system around?

Since I haven't gone on any touristy trips or witnessed anything that could qualify as exciting and worth telling you about, let me tell you about the absence of a system in Lebanon. I know it might sound strange at first, but I've been thinking about this for a while because I encounter the lack of system constantly, everywhere. Obviously here at work, I think I have talked about this in a previous post, but that's a different story. What I'm referring to is the absence of a central state in Lebanon.

It's something that you read about a lot when you study political science, different theories of the state etc., states in the Middle East.....and invariably, you will get to the universally accepted contention that there is an absence of central state power in Lebanon. Ok, it seems fairly obvious, there was a civil war, several militias that were involved in the war still retain their arms, the government doesn't have control over all of its territory: yeah, makes sense that you can't talk about much of a central government power. But this is only such a small part of the story!! And any political scientist looking at Lebanon from this angle is going to miss out on so many things. (I really want to send my thesis supervisor "Tommy" at FU Berlin an email and tell him about all of this, ask to retract my thesis and add some very important points - don't think they'll be up for it, but it would be great).

Normally, 'the system', i.e. some kind of centralised government, should formulate a bunch of policies, like social or economic policy. At least if you claim to be a democratic state, which Lebanon technically does (although of course I haven't met any real life Lebanese yet who think they live in a democratic state). It's a republic, you have elections, representation, separation of powers, the whole lot. What you don't have is economic or social policy. Why? Because money and power are allocated along sectarian lines: each of the different confessional communities, and of the big families within these communities, wants to make sure they get their share of the dough and the power. And they are strong enough to make sure that this works.

Some examples: jobs within the state administration in Lebanon aren't filled according to merit - i.e. who does the job best - but mostly according to religious and sectarian background. This is something that almost any standard text on Lebanon will tell you. Until very recently, I thought this meant that every ministry has its share of Christians, Sunni and Shia Muslims from different sects (there are 18 recognised ones in Lebanon!!). But, no! This can also mean that any one ministry is completely dominated by one single religion or sect. E.g.: the ministry of social affairs is mostly staffed with Shia administrators. So, what happens when you appoint a Christian minister to the top of this structure?? That's right, nothing. Nothing controversial can happen because that would risk an open conflict between sects, and you don't want to do that! Especially not right now, when there's a general and quite serious government crisis which pits the five Shia ministers in the government against their Christian and Sunni counterparts. (If you appointed a Shia, all the money would go to the Shia community.) So, Lebanon will go on without the social policies that would be so badly needed, like a general health insurance system (absent) or a sustainable pension system (absent) or a reform of the education system (badly needed, even though it might be one of the better ones in the MidEast). Instead, a network of charities and associations provide some basic services, and they, of course, are sectarian in turn. To create a state policy and structure to replace this network of sectarian, civil-society providers of social services would be great, but seems to remain pretty utopian. It would require a lot of money and would step on a lot of peoples' toes....

Or, take economic policy - opening up the telecommunications sector. Lebanon's mobile phone rates are some of the highest in the world. It's incredibly expensive - especially if you put it in context - and dominated by two companies who have special arrangements with the state. This makes the whole market very uncompetitive, but: you can't open it up because the Lebanese state depends on the income! They rely on people to use their mobile phones and pay these high rates as a major source of state income. This is especially needed considering Lebanon's enormous public debt caused mostly by overspending on reconstruction projects: it's actually the highest ratio of public debt to GDP in the world, at 171%. This is amazing! The public debt is almost twice as high as what the entire Lebanese economy generates in a year. Now, if you had a system, and a state power that were strong enough to make people pay their taxes, you might not have to rely so much on people's mobile phone habits. But there isn't any power that could make sure taxes are paid, and a budget gets agreed upon in time, and that the loans Lebanon gets are actually used for reducing public debt in the long term.

And there are so many more examples -- the absence of traffic rules. The inability to ensure even the most basic measures of environmental protection. The absence of central heating, or electricity when it's raining...I blame all of that on the system, or more precisely on its absence.

At first sight, it might not seem so bad that money gets allocated to different sects - as long as they all cooperate and care for their respective constituents, what's the problem...? I guess the problem is, as I was trying to argue in these examples, that for some things you really need a system, i.e. a state that can take care of some stuff from the center. Otherwise you'll always be at the mercy of any minor query between different sects, which could ignite at any time and paralyse everything. Plus, it makes everyone reliant on their respective community. There isn't any public space for people to demand their rights as citizens; everything has to go through your sect/community. So don't believe those people waving Lebanese flags and claiming to be patriotic: that is largely an expression of opposition to Syria. But it's very far away from being patriotic about a state....because it doesn't exist!!

So I have to disagree with a friend of mine who says that the Lebanese are experts at opposing any kind of system. It's more like: they don't have a system that they could oppose in the first place, really. And I think this problem has been here the whole time and will resurface more and more now that the Syrians are gone from Lebanon, taking with them their imposed and repressive security system and any excuse for the Lebanese to blame everything on Syria. Anyway, all I can say is that I have hugely underestimated this problem, looking at it from outside. Reading about things and seeing them first-hand really are two different things - I know this sounds really very naive but hey, it's the way I feel about being here.

And if you take this further and think about how to solve the problems that arise from not having a system....it really goes back to a lot of fundamental questions, like, how can the different sects cooperate? What is the role of outside actors in this? You could go on forever.