Yesterday, three days before Americans coast-to-coast will gather over turkey and cranberry sauce to remember when early settlers and natives set aside their cultural and religious differences, 25 graduate and undergraduate students gathered over hummus and falafel to hear a panel of experts discuss how the galvanized factions of war-torn Lebanon might one day do the same.
In a panel discussion called "The Struggle for Lebanon," Harvard Ph.D. candidate Mark Farha and Fletcher Ph.D. student Rudy Jaafar conducted a roundtable discussion on Lebanese politics and answered questions from the approximately 25 students in attendance. Farha gave an overview of Lebanon's major issues, and Jaafar followed with an argument that the country's political system, which allots parliamentary seats by religion and region according to a preset proportion, must be abolished in order for Lebanon to reach stability.
"Lebanon is a country of import far beyond its size," Farha said. "It is the only state in the region that does not stipulate Islam - or Judaism, in the case of Israel - as a state religion."
Instead, Lebanon's government is mainly divided among the three largest religious demographics: Christians, Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims. Farha said that the Lebanese constitution includes proportional quotas for representatives from each religion, which has led to disapproval from Shia Muslims who "were not given any position of prominence" when those proportions were set and "have not been integrated into the Lebanese state."
According to statistics Farha cited in his presentation, the Shia now constitute roughly 40 percent of Lebanon's population, while controlling only 20 percent of the parliamentary seats.
"The core of the tension has been an increase in the number of Shia," Farha said. "Today, they are making a claim for greater representation."
According to Jaafar, the result has been messy for Lebanon because of the destabilizing rise of Hezbollah as a powerful militia. To Jaafar, the country's problems transcend religion and are a result of Lebanon's governmental system, which he described as "at best, a short- to medium-term solution" after Lebanon's civil war. Rather than simply adjusting representative proportions of each religious sect to reflect changing demographics, Jaafar argued that the system as a whole must be completely overhauled.
"Lebanon is a religious mosaic; throughout history, many of the region's religious minorities have lived there," he said.
Before 1958 when the system was originally created, however, Lebanon "did not fracture along sectarian lines," according to Jaafar. It was the proportional religious representation system, combined with constantly changing demographics, he said, that began to tear the country apart.
"It's not because of Islam or because of the Lebanese; it's a systemic deficiency," Jaafar said.
Jaafar explained that since marriage, divorce and inheritance laws in Lebanon vary depending on a person's religion, the system has "crystallized identity" there.
"You are Lebanese, but you are a member of your sect first," he said. "By creating quotas, this system has created a balance of power between sects, and having such a balance of power mandates that each sect views the others with suspicion if they try to increase their power."
"It's good in government," he said, pointing out that the U.S. constitution creates a balance of power between the three branches of government. "But with nations, a balance of power can be very unstable."
Jaafar said the result has often been for the sects to ally with neighboring countries in order to continuously balance each other, citing the war between Israel and Hezbollah in July as "a direct attempt by an outside actor to change the balance of power in Lebanon." This, as well as group protests and acts of civil disobedience, are what Jaafar refers to as "extra-institutional means" that have escalated tension in the country.
"You're supposed to create by non-institutional means the channels that might pave the way for resolving conflict in the future," Jaafar said. "But what the sects are saying right now is, 'We're going to use extra-institutional means to make the system better for us.'"
In order to ease the tension in Lebanon, Jaafar said, Lebanon's governmental system must be changed. According to him, this change can likely only come from the Lebanese.
"In Lebanon, [other states] could intervene and impose a solution, but I think it's unlikely," he said. "Whenever you have foreign players, they have their interests as well."
Instead, Jaafar believes change in Lebanon should come from the bottom up.
"I think it might be a grassroots effort. You get a feel that there is a big chunk of the people who are just fed up with this state of affairs," Jaafar said. "The key is to get them mobilized."
For Jaafar, this cause is not just talk: Attempting to spur change in the future, he helped found a non-governmental organization in Lebanon aimed at raising awareness and promoting peaceful change. According to Jaafar, however, much more effort will be needed to alleviate Lebanon's tensions.
"If the state of affairs continues the way it is right now, I'm not sure how much time we'll have," he said. "If the system is not changed, I see a storm brewing for Lebanon."
