Thursday, December 28, 2006

young's "sectarian" fallacy.

michael young, opinion editor of the daily star, has written an article "in praise of lebanese sectarianism." although there are many points in this article i disagree with, most disagreements arise from our different constructs, and thus, i will not discuss them. however, i would like to concentrate on his conclusion, because it (and the argument leading to it) is a commonality in various discussions i have had with "pro-sectarianists." young's conclusion - found in the first paragraph - is that "sectarianism, for all its demonstrable shortcomings, is the only system reflecting the true nature of social relations".

unfortunately, such a conclusion is fallacious; the fallacy, in as few words as possible, is this: young uses anecdotal evidence to create his argument that sectarianism is the only system for lebanon. however, the main reason there is not much (if any) anecdotal evidence in lebanon to the contrary (which would have been enough to disprove his conclusion) is that sectarianism is the ONLY system lebanon has ever tried.

in short, like many others, young has created a strawman.

but enough logical tennis. we, as a lebanese society, need to seriously consider how de-confessionalising our political establishment will fare with respect to the current system. such deconfessionalisation does not come with a blank slate of projected perfection, and with this is mind, we need to make a decision. imagine if you will a patient with several diseases which have led to almost complete paralysis (but will not lead to death). there is a possible cure for one of these diseases, but like everything else in life, this cure is not a certainty. there is a chance of success, in which the patient will gain some form of mobility, but on the other hand, there is also a chance of failure, in which the patient will live a life (possibly much) worse off than his current situation. should this patient proceed with the operation? what information does he need to decide?

sectarianism, or political confessionalism, is one of the ills in lebanon (young seems to agree with this notion, as mentioned in paragraph 2). although a long-term strategy for the deconfessionalisation of our confessional system can potentially introduce great benefits, it can also yield destructive blowbacks. only after gathering information with regards to these different scenarios, such as their likelihood and the possible introduction of methods that mitigate various and justified worries (such as introducing a system of civil liberties and rights), can we really make the best decision of whether to simply "modify" the current system, as young and others suggest, or to deconfessionalise it. fallacious arguments are, and always have been, useless for such discussions, and the resulting decisions.


posted by Lazarus, 11:55 PM

15 Comments:

  • can only agree this time :)

    By Blogger R, at 1:31 AM  

  • Unfortunately, I must disagree with you, and agree with Young.

    Sectarianism is the system because people want it to be the system. There have been plenty of alternatives. Lebanese are free to vote for Communists, SSNP, Hareket Chaab, Baath, Yassar Demokrati, or Tajadod Democrati. They don't.

    The only reason the Yassar Demokrati has a representative in Parliament is because a sectarian leader, Saad Hariri, put him on his electoral list. The same goes for the SSNP and their Hezbollah sponsorship.

    The reason Lebanese turn to their sectarian leadership is because the state is not a strong one. But Lebanese do not want a strong state because Lebanon is a sectarian country, and that strong state would be controlled by a sectarian/feudal leader.

    There is a Roman solution to the problem, to give equal equal authority to the sectarian leaders in governing the state. However, that's what we already have. Unlike Marc Antony, Crassus, and Pompeii, Lebanese sectarian leaders came to their positions based on sect, not on individual influence. Thus, their loyalties are not to themselves, but to the people who put them in power Which is what perpetuates the sectarian system.

    The only way for the state in Lebanon to be strong is for it to be controlled by a foreign power that allows for the sectarian leadership to play their games, but taking care of major problems when they arise. Unfortunately, we've tried this system, too, and we're still suffering from the problems.

    By Blogger Charles Malik, at 5:19 AM  

  • Try as one might it is impossible to justify sectarianism. Young and others might opt for it if they choose but they must admit that a system of sectarianism is apartheid by other means. Any kind of a system that is placed on ethnicity, race , gender or religious sect ought to be rejected as unconscionable , demeaning, undemocratic and a reflection of a segregationist mentality.

    Charles, are you suggesting that slavery should have not been outlawed since it reflected the views of society at one point in time? or that genocide is acceptable when the majority participate in it? An idea is right or wrong based on its own merits and when you tell me that since I am registered in the Metn , for example, that I do not have the right to choose a Shiite representative then you have stolen from me my most valuable inherent right, free choice. And please don't tell me that I could have voted for a Shiite because no Shiite is allowed to run in this district.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:38 AM  

  • Charles,

    Just to add to what Ghassan has said, one can argue that the Lebanese people are sectarian PARTLY because they have been encouraged to be so by the system. While a full fledged secular system might be scary to some, think about the long term benefits of having people from bint jbeil forced to elect people from zgharta or people from Alay having to elect ...
    The point is, the Lebanese have never tried secularism, wheras sectarianism has been tried and it has failed us so many times, and will continue to do so.

    By Blogger R, at 12:14 PM  

  • Actually, Young's argument is completely fallacious and only serves to obscure the real reasons behind sectarianism. Saying that it is in place because the people want it removes the onus of responsibility from the state system. The idea of Lebanon as a country of minorities is only one out of many other ways to see it. We need to question why and in whose benefit it is for us to maintain this notion of Lebanon as a country of minority sects and that it can only be this way. What would happen if we decided to see Lebanon as 70% muslim and 30% christian? Wouldn't be so special then, would it? I personally see it as 60-70% poor, and think that is a much bigger line of division than sect (although sectarianism prevents most people from seeing it that way). The division between sunni and shia had to be enshrined into law by the french colonials in order to justify the rule of the maronites under their wing (and hence protect their own interests in the region) and enshrine the rule of a minority over a majority. It is the legal system that created sectarianism, and for us all to be deluded into thinking that it is so because it can be no other way means that the system has done a fantastic job of covering up for itself.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:29 PM  

  • Allow me to join my voice to the criticism of Young's article. Sectarian Democracy has failed miserably in the past 60 years (1951/1958/1973/1975-1990/2006). The fact that local vested interests are supporting it is not enough to praise it.

    Sectarianism is unsafe at any speed.

    By Blogger Ms Levantine, at 3:48 PM  

  • Sectarianism is unsafe at any speed.

    couldn't agree more... couldn't have said it better either...

    By Blogger Moussa Bashir, at 1:44 AM  

  • all,

    those who have read other of my posts on political confessionalism/sectarianism know where i stand on the issue. however, there is the problem that in discussions revolving around the topic, the different sides do not seem to really convince the other, partly because many of the "arguments" are statements of opinions, contain argumentantive errors (such as the classic mistake of confusing relevance with causality), and evolve from various social constructs. such descriptive arguments are not conducive to constructive dialogue.

    on the other hand, normative arguments, which are also a possibility in such discussions, are useful (and constructive) tools in dialogue. however, this has been very rare in public discourse - something that should (but probably won't) change.

    anyways, have a happy new year.

    - m.

    By Blogger Lazarus, at 3:23 AM  

  • Maybe the solution is to keep electing politicians based on sects, but a person from sect A has to work hard to provide x,y,z for sect F...

    Coz other than that, we're just stuck in a vicious circle!

    Anyway, enjoy new year's eve tonight, and Lazarus, you were at the meeting? did I see you (sorry but not everyone told me who they are.. :) )

    By Blogger Liliane, at 7:39 AM  

  • Laz is right, a lot of circularity, chicken-egg stuff in those kinds of discussions.

    The "right" questions need to be asked and then: discussion.

    "Sectarianism" can be done well or badly, in a temporary fashion or not...It was/is just a means to an end. Unfortunately, to many, it has become an "end".

    Happy New Year All

    By Blogger JoseyWales, at 8:02 AM  

  • The fallacy in your argument:

    Lebanon being an Arab country is full of Arabs.

    The rest of the Arab world tried their hands in different systems.

    The Arabs are confessional by nature.

    Of course "sectarianism" is the core problem, as Young points out, but to deny the advantage (and yes there is an advantage) that it put on Lebanon in terms of being a system that represented everyone instead of muzzling them (e.g. Kurds in Iraq/Turkey, Berbers in Algeria, Xians in Egypt...). To deconfessionalize the country requires deconfessionalizing the people.

    And if the people wanted to be deconfessionalized, they can start grass roots movements to introduce civil movements, within the context of the confessional system (i.e. by electing from their communities those who reflect their views).

    For the person who said confessionalism is like racism. Why don't you bellow out on the "multi-cultural" proponents in the Western world. The Libano-Canadians/Americans/Europeans. The Arab European movemments. It's all the same thing.

    And why not diss "affirmative action" as reverse racism. Sometimes, recognizing the difference to right wrongs, is not wrong in itself. Until the Arab world comes to terms with the social wrongs it has commited, all you people are talking only ideals.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:37 PM  

  • Heya.
    It was nice meeting you.. now I can put a face to the name :)

    By Blogger Delirious, at 1:26 PM  

  • sborrate gratuito
    bashful asiatiche maledica
    tettone enormi
    donne in minigonna nera
    ragazze piccole scopate dai vecchi
    coraggioso tedesco spogliarello
    video svedesi
    favoloso lavoro di piede
    segretarie bionde
    foto gratis mamme troie
    nicer tedesco amore
    sympathetic inglese scopata
    freddissimo strappare padre
    timorous bionde strip
    bashful asiatiche maledica
    imbarazzato tedesco dildo
    www filmexxx gratis
    avventuroso segretaria inculate
    tutto tette foto gratis
    piu freddo vibratore
    molto bollente fighette azione
    ragazze vergine giapponesi
    eccessivo molto
    sensazione asiatiche strip
    fresco comico chat
    fsex fighette fottilo
    mamma pompini
    eccessivo molto
    friendly fighetta fotti
    freschissimo deciso madre
    piu fresco sensazione vergine
    cute segretaria prostituta
    in casa vecchie
    nude vintage
    invisibile bionde strip
    dildo sex
    sheepish asiatiche figa fotti
    infermiere mepeg
    mousey infermiera urinate
    piu bollente imbarazzato vere
    sulle scale bimbo
    desire cowgirl pompino
    molto lesbiche
    emotivo fighette masturbate
    coppia asexta
    piu bollente mamma
    sconfinato aspo
    comico cowgirl
    ridicolo inglese diteggiatura
    raro fighetta dildo

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:55 AM  

  • Laz... why?

    -m

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:48 AM  

  • That's enough now. Yalla come back Laz.

    By Blogger m.i., at 3:28 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home