Rebuilding a country devastated by war, riven by internal divisions, and plagued by foreign intervention in a part of the world as volatile as the Middle East is one of the most daunting tasks imaginable. Add to it a desire to create a democracy from scratch in a region characterized by authoritarian government and that task becomes almost impossible. But the challenge has been met before, in Lebanon after its nightmarishly long civil war (1975 to 1990). So perhaps there are lessons from that experience that can be applied in Iraq.
Both Lebanon and Iraq comprise ancient communities living within the borders of states outlined in the 20th century. Although a strong sense of modern nationalism exists in both, ancient ethnic and religious communities play a critical role in shaping political identities and public life.
Both countries also possess a fairly educated middle class and intelligentsia alongside more traditional elites. Both societies have a mixed history that included periods of peaceful, cooperative politics and periods of violence and bloodletting.
One lesson from Lebanon's recent history stands out above all others: In divided political societies such as Lebanon and Iraq, coalition democracy is preferable to majoritarian winner-takes-all democracy. In Lebanon, the danger of one community monopolizing power over others is avoided because the Lebanese constitution imposes permanent power-sharing arrangements on all major communities. These arrangements apply both to parliament and the executive branch.
In Lebanon's post-war parliament, seats are widely distributed among the various confessional communities, so that none feels excluded or fears losing political representation if it loses numerical superiority. In the executive branch, the council of ministers is balanced among Christians and Muslims in order to encourage, indeed force, cooperation and to avoid the risk of domination and the fear of oppression by one group.
In addition, the three major posts in government -- the president of the republic, the prime minister, and the speaker of parliament -- are counterbalanced in power and are also divided among the three largest communities. Moreover, coexistence and cooperation among the various communities is enshrined as a basic principle in Lebanon's constitution. Promoting any policy or law that increases communal tension is unconstitutional.
In Iraq, some of these steps have already been taken. The Governing Council and the interim government are both coalition bodies of the Lebanese type, comprising studied proportions from the three main communities in Iraq -- the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds. Iraq, however, still has neither a parliament nor a constitution.
With regard to parliament, there is no need to follow Lebanon's rigid apportionment of seats according to confessional identity. All the same, Iraq's parliamentary electoral law should be drawn up to take two important factors into account:
First, districts should be drawn to ensure that all major communities in the country are amply represented in parliament and none feels left out.
Second, electoral districts should be multi-member districts and should, as far as is possible, include populations of more than one community in order to encourage cross-communal politics and the election of moderate politicians that can speak to all communities and that know how to resolve tensions among them.
Until elections can be organized, it may be necessary to do what was done in Lebanon just after the war: appoint members to an interim Iraqi parliament. This could be described as a temporary advisory parliament, or "Shura council," but it should include hundreds of figures from throughout the country and they should be selected through the Governing Council and interim government after nationwide consultations.
Such a large Shura council would provide a broad Iraqi face and body to the interim administration. It would also serve to create the beginnings of Iraqi parliamentary and local politics in advance of the elections, which should be held as soon as possible.
In terms of drawing up a new constitution, the Lebanese principle of government by power sharing must be a central pillar. Beyond the balance of representation in parliament and government, a balance might need to be struck between the highest offices of state.
As in Lebanon, Iraqis might need to create a balance between the offices of president, prime minister and speaker of parliament, and to agree that a leader of a different major community will occupy each. This would reinforce the need for inter-communal cooperation and minimize the risk of a return to any form of communal domination or dictatorship.
As someone who knew Lebanon in its darkest hours -- when Lebanon was a by-word for chaos, violence and political hopelessness -- and who saw its rapid reconstitution as a functioning participatory political system and its astonishing return to normalcy, I know that Iraq can be politically rebuilt. Like the Lebanese, Iraqis have suffered enough. By recognizing a permanent say in politics for all of the country's mutually suspicious communities, Iraqis can pull back from the brink and build for themselves an Iraq worthy of their talents and their history.
Paul Salem is a political analyst and director of The Fares Foundation in Lebanon.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry