Crisis of a different kind in Lebanon, Jordan

The Tunisian, Egyptian, Libyan and Yemeni uprisings in North Africa and West Asia have adopted a similar course. Angry, disaffected citizens have staged mass uprisings with the aim of toppling dictators in power for decades. These uprisings have manifested themselves as raw people’s power, ignoring communal, sectarian and tribal affiliations. It took the Tunisians a month to achieve their goal, the Egyptians 18 days; the Libyans and Yemenis are still struggling.

Since the discontents of the ‘Arab spring’ surfaced, Jordanians and Lebanese have also taken to the streets of their capital cities. But their campaigns have been quite different from those elsewhere because the uprisings have different roots and different objectives.

In Jordan, a reform movement emerged in the provincial Christian town of Madaba where tribesmen and labourers demonstrated against corruption, the lack of jobs, and high taxes on essential goods. Determined to catch the attention of the government, the protesters shifted to Amman, the capital where they have marched, camped in front of the interior ministry, and held rallies every Friday since early January. Idealistic young people, the Muslim Brotherhood and leftists joined the tribesmen and labourers.

Urge for liberty

As in Egypt, Facebook, Twitter, and mobile phone texting became the tools of young organisers. Muhammad Bitar, an engineer, told ‘Deccan Herald’, “We want a Jordan with no corruption, a government voted by the people, monitored by the people.We want to have the same freedoms they have in Europe”. He said: “Our loyalty to King Abdullah is not debatable. We are convinced that the king is protecting Jordan and that he will unite us.”

A senior statesman drew the distinctions between Jordan and elsewhere. “Jordan is not a dictatorship like Tunisia or Egypt. We made the important changes between 1989 and 1993.” He said that although political parties were not allowed, parties not only existed but fielded independent candidates who represented all shades of opinion in the country from left to right.

He asserted, “We abolished martial law in 1992” unlike Egypt, where emergency law is still in force and Tunisia where it has just been lifted. Unfortunately, he admitted upheavals in the region led to retrenchment from the democratisation process begun between 1989-93. “We need to amend the constitution and the laws to fit current circumstances.”

Like Jordan, Lebanon has no dictator, martial law or political prisoners. But Lebanon’s nascent pro-democracy movement is demanding more than reform and more than the ousting of its rulers. Last weekend, marchers in the northern city of Tripoli and the southern port of Sidon adopted the chant of the Egyptian rebels, “The people want the end of the regime.”

However, the ‘regime’, the Lebanese movement for change seeks to abolish is the sectarian system imposed on the country by its French colonial masters before independence in 1943. The system, never intended to be equitable or democratic, empowered one of the country’s 18 communities and marginalised the rest. Under this system, presidents are always Maronite Catholic Christians (now about 18 per cent of the population), prime ministers Sunni Muslims (20 per cent), and parliamentary speakers Shias (30 per cent). Other key posts are also distributed by sect.

While governance is, in theory, by consensus, this collapses periodically, producing long periods without a functioning government — as now — instability and conflict. Following the 1975-90 civil war, the powers of the president were reduced and those of the prime minister enhanced under a modified power-sharing deal but sectarianism was solidified instead of being phased out.

While Lebanon’s presidents and prime ministers change from time to time, pollster and researcher Abdo Saad observed, “One of the manifestations of democracy is rotation within the elite. In Lebanon, power has been in the hands of the same people leading families for 100 years.”

Lebanese ‘abolitionists’ have to deal with deeply ingrained confessionalism, generations of communalism, layer upon layer of interests, politicians who are prepared to fight tooth and nail to retain their positions, their confederates who gain from the system, constituents who also benefit and clients who seek favours. Connections are all important in systems based on what sociologists call ‘clientism’. In Lebanon ‘clientism’ reigns and is the font of endemic, rampant corruption. Consequently, Saad said, “Lebanon will be the last Arab country to attain democracy”.