 |
Seminar Calls for Power-Sharing in Conflicted Societies, Such as Lebanon
and Northern Ireland
 |
| Left to right: Dina Melhem and Professor Michael kerr |
Power-sharing is the best available system for regulating conflict in
divided societies, said participants in a seminar held in West Hall on
November 29. Organized by AUB's Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy
and International Affairs in collaboration with the Westminster Foundation
for Democracy, the event was entitled "The Culture of Power-sharing
in Northern Ireland and Lebanon: Does History Count?"
Moderated by Dina Melhem of the Westminster Foundation, the seminar was
led by two panelists: Professor Michael Kerr, Leverhulme Research Fellow
at the London School of Economics and author of Imposing Power Sharing:
Conflict and Coexistence in Northern Ireland and Lebanon, and AUB Visiting
Professor Theodor Hanf, director of the International Centre for Human
Sciences, Byblos, Lebanon.
Having studied Irish and Lebanese politics for almost a decade, Kerr could
readily define the main causes of success or failure in a power-sharing
set-up. He shared with the audience a series of 'lessons learned' from
the Irish experience that served as tips. For instance, Northern Ireland
went through three power-sharing ventures between 1974 and 2007. The first
two attempts failed, and the third venture, which has been enjoying success,
is "completely dominated by the hard-line parties, the Democratic
Unionist Party and Sinn Fein, adding credence to the view that it is easier
to make peace between extremes in divided societies or at least not against
them, as we saw last summer in Lebanon," said Kerr.
Professor Hanf also agreed with Kerr, arguing against the perceived superiority
of majoritarian democracies over consensus democracies. "On the other
hand, there are those countries which we call divided, such as Lebanon,
Ireland, Belgium....These did not lack the 'good will' to do away with
minorities, but learnt the hard way through war and conflict that they
needed to find a non-violent way to regulate their divisions….Power-sharing
is a way to regulate divisions, not solve them," he said.
Hanf added that power-sharing can only succeed through balance of power.
Throughout history, all Lebanese communities allied themselves with an
external power to create a balance vis-à-vis the others. But over
time, Hanf said, they were all let down. "One community, who felt
disenfranchised for a long time," referring to the Shiites, "did
not have an external ally until 1979, and they have been enjoying a good
experience."
Indeed, power-sharing involves the implementation of the old Lebanese
maxim "no victor, no vanquished" for it to succeed, noted Kerr,
giving the example of how disregard for Lebanon's national pact by international
interventionists has prevented the regulation of its conflict both now
and throughout history.
"Lebanon, with its history and culture of power-sharing that long predates independence, has a great deal to offer the world in terms of illustrating how this system can work," Kerr added. "The great challenge is to construct institutional frameworks which address the constitutional issues that invariably lie at the heart of ethno-national divisions, whilst maintaining a political process capable of providing incentives and motivations to bring together all the major parties to the conflict."
While a history and culture of power-sharing are fundamentally important to regulate political divisions in fractured societies, the successful maintenance of power-sharing is reliant on a stable regional environment and the positive input of external forces that hold an interest, Kerr argued.
"The idea of external states holding a non-selfish interest in Lebanon might sound like an oxymoron or a naive contradiction in terms, but this is exactly why power-sharing has worked in Western Europe," he said, before conceding that "Lebanon is clearly less fortunate than Northern Ireland in many respects….Some have suggested that it may not in fact be good fences that make good neighbors, but perhaps the neighbors themselves…."
In fact, while US political and financial support for the IRA diminished after September 11, Israel's clearly expressed selfish and strategic interest in Lebanon was grounds for Hizbullah to maintain its external struggle following Israel's withdrawal in the year 2000, said Kerr. Hizbullah as well maintained its relevance to Iran and Syria in their regional power struggle with Israel and the United States.
Domestically, however, Hizbullah did not share Sinn Fein's level of political comfort, with both the Taef Accord and the power-sharing arrangement following Syria's departure having failed to make room for or solve the problem of Hizbullah's political-military duality. "Nevertheless, one difference between Hizbullah and Sinn Fein is that Hizbullah did not acquire its arms to destroy the state, but in fact claimed to defend it," said Kerr.
Despite the current divisions and standoffs, Hanf remained "very optimistic about Lebanon," because of the social dynamics he has been witnessing in the surveys he has been conducting. "Nine out of ten Lebanese now identify themselves as Lebanese, whereas this was definitely not the case thirty years ago," he said. "In any case, stalemate is always better than war."