History and pedagogy of the State in Lebanon

Can you be a historian without a philosophy of history? The problem has often been discussed in relation to the lessons of history, although it goes far beyond this dimension.

What matters to us here is the fundamental dimension of history, which is in essence dialectical between society and authority. Even when I launch into the little story, the microhistory, that of a small nuclear family, even if the members of this family have never been involved in politics, there is necessarily a public dimension, namely the repercussions of the general situation, wars, violence, peace, policies… on this nuclear family.

In nations whose nation-building is contractual and where the nation for centuries was fragmented into provinces with interference and occupations, as is the case especially with Switzerland, the Netherlands, Lebanon … it is the problem of state building, beyond the emirates and regional feudalism, which poses a problem.

It is in the history of France, and not that of Lebanon, that I myself learned the evolution of state authority. Before Louis XIV, the king was king only in his domain. It was in France the fruit of an evolution, especially with Richelieu; State authority was then extended to feudal lordships and local lordships which ensured the defense of the population against aggression in return for the subordination of this population.

Norbert Elias (1897-1990), in The Dynamics of the West, describes the evolution of state building in the West. Studies in Lebanon and elsewhere have sensed the central problem of the state in Lebanese society without, however, tackling it head on.

The supreme regulatory body

Some authors approach the Chehab mandate from a nostalgic perspective, or of the political defense of a mandate in relation to others, or of an experience in the constitutional history of Lebanon. However, this is a comparative approach in comparative constitutional law with regard to pluralist societies.

There is no alternative for Lebanon to the supreme presidential body guaranteeing “respect for the Constitution” (art. 49), whether it is a unitary or federal territorial system, or even a strong one. decentralized.

The other perspective is “minority control”, the “dominant majority” or “dominant minority”, with in Lebanon the Sublime Porte, feudalism, tribalism, plutocracy, generalized disorder and armed or cold civil war. It is the philosophical and constitutional theorization of the Lebanese state so that it is not a chrysanthemum state where everyone tears off a petal from the flower without worrying about the harmony of the whole.

What is the content of the revisited historiography of the State in Lebanon and, basically, of any scientific historiography? This content, which is now completely absent in the historiography of Lebanon, comprises three constitutive elements of the state.

1. Sovereignty: all the arrangements prior to the independence of November 22, 1943 are various occupations, French mandate, and therefore without sovereignty, without national decision. The specific regime of the Mountain is called administrative autonomy (idâra thâtiyya) and not independence (istiqlâl). The emirs of the Mountain are activists and resistance fighters of great stature, but they are agents of the Sublime Ottoman Porte.

2. State authority: the dialectic between society and authority, very explicit in the factual and realistic history of Lebanon (and basically in any national and regional history), must be developed with regard to the rulers (wâli), emirates, seigneuries, feudalism and de facto powers.

3. Endogenous Lebanese constitutional evolution: the constitutional historical evolution of Lebanon since the most ancient times is obscured in the general historiography of Lebanon, in spite of pioneering work on the part of eminent historians who have excavated in the Lebanese archives, French and international.

Proof that the state is neither understood nor acculturated in Lebanon? Any comment, any debate, even in academic circles, on the state deviates towards a partisan debate of justification or accusation in favor or against a particular political formation!

Who is the supreme regulator of the state in a pluralistic society? Article 49 of the Constitution is not satisfied with the qualification of “President of the Republic”, it is added voluntarily: “The President of the Republic is the Head of State” (sic), whereas he For the other supreme magistracies, it is a question of “president of the Council of Ministers” (art. 64) and of “president of the Chamber” (art. 77). What a shame, shame, decadence … that a Head of State (sic) claims to be devoid of salâhiyyât (attributions), that constitutionalists palaver on attributions and that a Maronite and Christian imagination, manipulated by impostors, beg for salâhiyyât to the head of state who is, in essence, above the salâhiyyât, guarantor of the supremacy of the kitâb, at the top of all powers without exception, to defend the State, sovereignty, and not to camouflage the occupation and conclude an alliance with an army-party in violation of the sovereign attributes of the state!

Today, “the varnish has melted”, as Antoine Courban writes. The culture of the State in Lebanon now requires another historiography of Lebanon, another reading of the Lebanese constitutional regime in a comparative perspective, another political socialization and pedagogy of the State.

We consider, as experimental and normative examples, the development of educational booklets, with the aim of popularization, with the following titles:

1. What is the state?

2. The proclamation of the State of Greater Lebanon in 1920.

3. What happened in Lebanon after the independence of November 22, 1943: sovereignty, national government, army, police, customs, currency…?

4. State, my love in 1975-1990.

5. Horrors and misfortunes of the Lebanese State from 1943 to 2020.

6. The story of the state in Lebanon told to our children.

7. The history of the Lebanese constitutional regime, from its origins to the present day, told to our children.

Texts published in the “mail” section are the sole responsibility of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the point of view of L’Orient-Le Jour. Please limit your texts to a thousand words or approximately 6000 characters, including space.

–

Can you be a historian without a philosophy of history? The problem has often been discussed in relation to the lessons of history, although it goes far beyond this dimension. What matters to us here is the fundamental dimension of history, which is in essence dialectical between society and authority. Even when I launch into the little story, microhistory, …