However, it is best not to buy into American media narratives of the polls, even the NYTimes, which seem to be oversimplifying the results or even (as in the case of some liberal bloggers) concluding that Obama’s Cairo speech swung the balance. Moreover, the race was dominated by local politics and family ties in many ways, and was not as simple as the “Hezbollah versus the West” narrative that played out in Western newspapers. A little analysis shows otherwise.

Hezbollah ran 11 seats in this parliament, and won all 11, compared to the 14 they ran in 2005, due to redistricting reasons. Amal, the other main Shiite party a Hezbollah ally which is secular and non-Islamist, ran 15 last parliament, and this parliament won again more seats than Hezbollah.

The battle was not between Hezbollah’s party per se, and the pro-Western parties, but specifically the Lebanese elections were fought amongst the Christians between Hezbollah ally Christian General Michele Aoun (and lesserly known his Christian companion Sulieman Farenjieh’s Marada Movement) and the Phalange and Lebanese Forces parties. And they were specifically fought over two swing districts - Metn and Zahle mostly - which were basically deciders of the fate of Lebanon.

Michele Aoun did not campaign on a pro-Hezbollah, pro-Iran platform, and his supporters and voters mostly voted for him for reform and economic reasons. He pledged to “clean up politics” and named his coalition the “reform and change bloc.” However, it is undeniably true that whichever way Metn and Zahle swung would hold the cards.

The parliamentary majority of the March 14th coalition based on the 2005 elections was 72/56, and prior to the elections due to byelections, defections, and assasinations was 68/56 (with 4 independents). After last night’s elections, March 14th rules with a majority of 71/57, which actually is a net loss of one seat to the pro-Western coalition, and a pick up of 1 seat by Hezbollah’s ally with independents taking the rest.

The three districts where March 8th hoped to make pick ups, Zahle, Metn, and Beirut 1 were the nail in the coffin of their electoral hopes. Zahle and Metn are two of the most Christian districts in Lebanon, Zahle is a Roman Catholic stronghold while Metn is a diverse mix of Maronites, Orthodox, and a large and sizable population of Armenians. At 4:30 PM EST, the famous Lebanese political reporter and anchor Marcel announced that Zahle was swept 7-0 for March 14th with not a single upset for General Aoun’s party. When this was announced, LBC and the remainder of Lebanese networks declared a victory for March 14th (3 and a half hours before the BBC, CNN International, Al-Jazeera, or the NYTimes) which was obvious.

In the Metn district however, Aoun carried 5/7 seats with March 14th only carrying 2. This still meant a victory for March 14th due to the Zahle sweep, yet it was a far cry from the hopes of the ruling majority. In fact, one of the ruling majority’s winning MPs Michele Murr was in fact an incumbent who used to be a member of the March 8th bloc and defected. So March 14th did very badly in the Metn.

Why was this so? There are many reasons. It is partly due to the fact that the Armenian Tashnaq party could not secure enough government power in the case of a coalition with March 14th, while Aoun promised them cabinet posts, and hence their strong minority tipped the balance towards him. But this is only part of the story. Any true analysis of these elections has to look into voter behavior in the Metn and Zahle and understand why this overwhelmingly Christian district gave 5 of its seats to the pro-Hezbollah alliance. Exit polls given by the Lebanese network LBC said that 38% of Metn voters voted based on sect, 38% voted based on politics, and 91% voted for an entire list.

This shows a very highly politicized, sectarian Metn which strongly backed Aoun’s party whole heartedly, there weren’t many split ballots. Moreover, 67.89% of Metn voters had already selected their candidate over a month ago. Why Metn is such a huge Aoun stronghold, even after he signed an alliance with Hezbollah, remains to be seen. Aoun’s Hezbollah-allied party retained every single seat it was defending and picked up a seat in Metn, which is not good news for political stability and shows the country is still highly divided.

But it was overwhelmingly Catholic Zahle’s 7-0 sweep for March 14th that made the day. That coupled with a 7-0 sweep in Beirut 1 district, showed that Aoun could make no inroads amongst these voters like he thought he would. Why did Zahle and Beirut 1 remain behind March 14th? That is the big question of the Lebanese elections. I think it is partly local and family politics, but perhaps it was also a fear of Iranian and Syrian influence in the country.

In the coming days when more data comes out of Zahle and Beirut 1 we will be able to see why Aoun could not swing these seats into his bloc.

Yet, for all the talk of a “pro-Western upset” in Lebanon, it is clear that the Hezbollah-backed opposition actually gained a seat, and the parliament is as divided as it always was. Forming a government is going to be an extremely difficult matter, and the highly fractured coalitions on both sides may actually be crumbling and forming into new electoral alignments as is the norm in Lebanon.

Walid Jumblatt, a member of the March 14th alliance, has indicated that he wants to include Hezbollah in the cabinet, and others in the bloc such as majority leader Saad Hariri have also seemed to be open to this. Hezbollah has accepted the election results but seem to want some power in the next government, and so it is mainly the status quo for Lebanon and the same instability we’ve been seeing in the next 4 years. Nothing more.

Anyways, those are earliest thoughts.

Share This

Those are all nice points of arguments, but unfortunately, what conservatives forget most of all is the Iraq war. Bush was such a bad present precisely because of the Iraq debacle. Until the GOP can learn to repudiate the Iraq war once and for all, it will never return. Amazing how some of Ron Paul’s points - most notably libertarianism and federalism in social issues - are begining to make their way into the mainstream with Judge Napolitano on Fox News, and Joe Scarborough on MSNBC (who has even criticized American empire). Yet, its not abortion, or gay marriage, nor even social democracy, which is going to save the Republican party, its the repudiation of empire. The Republicans lost in 2006, when they first began to lose control, because of the Iraq war. Take heed.

Share This

Most of the media took the threat as absolutely disgusting. Others even cried racism, equating secession with the American Civil War and slavery. Others noted it was unpatriotic, or maybe we could more accurately say unnationalistic.

I am not really decided either way with the question of secession. But let me just remind people, the political principle of secession does not necessarily have to mean all of the above. Nor is it unusual in modern times. One only has to look up north to Canada, our neighboring confederation, wherein each province still retains a right of secession against the federal government. Most noteworthy has been Quebec in modern times which has threatened secession against the federal government for what - in its view - have been federal government injustices against the French language and culture. Yet, Western Canada which is by population the minority yet retains a majority of Canada’s national resources, has pondered secession a time or two because of what it percieves as the federal central government’s exploitation of its resources.

What have been the effects of the secessionist right in Canada? Well, not only has a single province not seceded in Canada since confederation, but actually the province of Newfoundland has been added to Canada. Although, in the mid-90s, Quebec almost did secede, for the most part the Canadian confederation has remained stable. To this day, the breakup of Canada has not been witnessed.

Thus is the benefits of the right of secession. When the state governments can threaten to leave the union or the confederation, the federal government is careful not to overstep its bounds and exploit or harm the state governments. Of course, the federal government is going to work as hard as it can to avoid the break up of the union because the break up of the union is not in its own interests. Although we may rely on the hopeful and idealistic assumption that the federal government will not exploit the states, only through the threat of power (most times) do self-interested peoples listen.

During Bush’s reign as president, he passed many laws which were extremely offensive to liberal Americans. For instance, the PATRIOT Act, the loss of civil liberties, the banking bailout, etc.  If there was a threat of secession by the states, and remember California for instance is the eighth largest economy in the world and could exist by itself, then there would be a threat against federal government overreach. States rights then are simply another form of check-and-balance. While government branches and corporations grow closer to each other against the public interest,  the localism of the state provides a strong check against the overreach of the federal government.

Personally, I don’t know how well the right-to-secession would work in modern day America. States did (in theory) retain this right prior to the Civil War, and the United States did itself in fact invoke the right of secession against the United Kingdom of Great Britain during the War of Independence, but nowadays I do not know if it would work. One thing is for sure - it works up north in Canada - and secession itself is a principle of liberty, and a tool against powerhungry oppression and government overreach.

Share This

Moreoever, anyone who reads any mainstream work in banking economics knows that not everyone agrees with a Federal Reserve at all.  I am not saying what we replace it with, but the Federal Reserve is a monster, a hydra with many heads thats feeds the modern system of government and corporate exploitation and injustice.  It is the ultimate example of the corporatism of modern America.

Thank God however, the recent crisis, has had some actually come out and debate the Fed.

Share This

- Ibn ‘Ata Allah

The aforementioned is an aphorism by the Muslim mystic Ibn ‘Ata Allah in his work al-Hikam, one which should not be forgotten by Muslims or Christians. Ibn ‘Ata Allah for Muslims is a Thomas More for Christians. The translation of the aphorism is “The days of distress and hardships are the celebrations of joy for those who seek God. You may reach spiritual heights from distress and hardships that you would not even find in much prayer or in much fasting.”

God is beautiful, he loves beauty, and beauty surrounds us.

Share This

The fundamental premise of my political (which, we must remember, is a branch of ethical) thought is the basic inherent dignity of human life. It is this dignity which establishes the importance of justice. Michael J. Perry argues that this premise is the very religious basic premise of liberal democracy’s view of human rights which he claims cannot be established without theological basis. Pro-life people, for those who truly had to sit through Catholic social teaching classes about it everyday, are not just people against abortion but people against hurting other people, stealing from people, domestic violence, objectifying women like beasts, etc.

Or maybe, politically, I am covenental? Daniel Elazar makes a great point in this wonderful book I am reading on the politics of the Bible. He writes that all political communities of the early prophets of God were covenental, something as a Muslim we can even extent to the Messenger Muhammad (SAW), without much controversy (Google: The Medina Constitution). A covenant, Elazar writes, is a solemn and freely entered agreement which is given spiritual dignity through its trancendent theological basis.  All communities, legal orders, and political institutions of the early Jewish community, Elazar argues, were established in covenant.

The problem is how to reconcile covenental polity with the fact that the flipside of human needs is the need to be free? Elazar coins a name for this concept - covenental liberty - liberty established and affirmed by the trancendant within the bonds of the solemn trancendant covenant; not the “natural liberty” of classical liberalism which affirms liberty only to survive without a teleological basis.

Very interesting food for thought. Any thoughts?

Share This

Share This

With the rash corporatism of corporations making so many of the new rules to save their own behinds, unnaturally staying on top while using government and to enrich themselves further and protect themselves by establishing themselves legally as “persons” and entitling themselves to unfair rule changes and bailouts - you must ask yourself a real question which defines what I have been thinking of the economic policy of the first three months of the Obama administration:

When choosing between an injustice which enriches the wealthy and powerful at the cost of the poor (corporatism), and another injustice which hurts individual liberty, wholesome commerce and industry, and economic development at the cost of the rich (social democracy) which do you choose?

The GOP might hold their tea parties, but all they have been proposing for the last 3 months has been pretty much Bushism.  More wars, this time an Afghanistan surge which they support Obama on, and an American-Israeli strike on Iran.  More government spending while cutting taxes and hence creating inflation.  More, same old tired ideas, except some Republicans try to be more like Democrats - i.e. the neoconservatives like David Frum which call for “change.”

 Its only been a few months, but the GOP proves itself more and more to be a party that deserves to be dead.  Until the party rejects Bushism, there can be no change.  The Democrats may be bringing social democracy to our shores, but if a slightly more peaceful and less corporatist foreign policy means social democracy, then social democracy is better than the Republican Party.

Share This

Share This

Share This