On National Identity

The Lebanese identity has yet to mature.

As a fairly recent state, the idea of a Lebanese nation has been developing unlike the first two waves of nationalism in which the various Southern American and European nations emerged.

The borders that define its geographical extent were carved out before its sense of identity fully developed. Different visions have been clashing for the past century, for a chance to succeed in defining the Lebanese national identity and its final role in the broader regional context which ultimately mixes local and global interests inseparably.

Is Lebanon an Arab state? Is it a Christian enclave in the broad Islamic world? Is it the heir to the glorious Phoenician civilization? Should Lebanon be part of a Greater Syria? Or maybe a region within the next Islamic Caliphate? Could it be an extension to the Islamic Revolution? What is its role in the question of Palestine, its relation with the Arab States, and is Israel a friend or a mortal enemy?

Great leaders emerged to lead each of these attempts at shaping our national identity. Kamal Jumblat, Antoun Saadeh, Bachir Gemayel, Rafic Hariri, and finally Hassan Nasrallah have all profoundly shaped our national identity and understanding of what it means to be Lebanese. They represent the epitome of each different vision for the Lebanese experience and are seen either as saints and heroes to their people or devils and criminals by their foes. Yet, behind all the popular opinion around them, be it positive or negative, behind all the resentment or admiration we might hold towards them, we as a people must acknowledge their collective impact on shaping our developing Lebanese identity. An identity built on years and years of standing our ground against foreign aggression. An identity built on the value of human life, and its diversity, and on centuries of interacting as communities and as individuals, whether in cities of the greater Levant region under the subsequent empires, or in the rural areas under the patronage of the local feudal and religious lords.

Questions about the essence and role of the modern Lebanese State have dominated the political landscape for the past century and demarcated the cultural lines inside its borders. These lines soon evolved to become sectarian in nature.

This past century has forged in our collective awareness a sense of solidarity through the many many crises and wars as a nation. In parallel, the same wars and in-fighting followed by the mismanagement of the post-war period led to the dominance of sectarian identity over national identity. The use of force in imposing one’s vision over the others and the ultimate failure of all the different players to achieve their goals led to a political deadlock represented by a system built on the idea of confessionalism and the division of the state and its resources between the different sects, which gave each group veto power over any decision by the state. It also led to an increase in the resentment each sect hold towards the other by putting the blame on “the others” for all the troubles that Lebanon is going through.

Our story has reached a critical time when the trumpets of war are threatening the unity of our country. The Israelis are destroying the demographic balance in order to fuel sectarian divisions hoping that it leads to internal chaos and civil war, by completely destroying ‘Shia’ areas and humiliating them into finding shelter and creating a new life in other areas which are not necessarily of the same sectarian background. In the midst of this foreign aggression, the question of the Lebanese identity arises once more, this time two different visions compete:

• Standing up to the external aggressions and hegemony of the West over our country and region, and dealing with the isolation – if not worse – that comes as a consequence of that positioning.
• Siding with the West and accepting direct Western influence by sacrificing National Pride and Sovereignty for potential economic revenue and social stability which are not guaranteed, under a corrupt and oppressive regime not unlike Egypt and Iraq after the war.

The question of siding with the West – in other words ending all fighting with the West’s protégé Israel – or fighting against its hegemony, has resurfaced due to the ongoing Israeli aggression against Lebanon. People are divided between two fronts, the first led by the US and the second led by Iran for the time-being.

Which should Lebanon side with? Is one choice better than the other? Should Palestine’s freedom be a matter of national security which the State needs to strive for? Or are Lebanon’s interests better served if the cause is completely abandoned?

You could debate that the values of one are closer to one’s own than the other, that the interests of one are more aligned to ours than the other, but this argument can be made for either side based on which group in Lebanon you’re asking. And that exactly is the main problem: there is no central Lebanese authority that can clearly define the better interests of the Lebanese State and its people and maneuver its way between the leading powers of the region.

The only answer to this question is to reject the premise that we must choose between one out of two opposing sides, especially in a time when all our neighbors are doing the exact opposite, by opening communication channel with everyone especially in these times of changing global dynamic, to keep their options open and safeguard their interests and the safety and security of their citizens.

The question should then become: What are the needed resources and efforts to build a State which can act and talk on behalf of the Lebanese with the different actors of the region and the world. We do not have to take sides, and we also do not have to stand at the sidelines and be neutral in front of conflicts that could potentially bring harm to our country.

A state must not be chained by ideological and dogmatic ideals in laying down its foreign policies

One after another, each sect has gone through a cycle of growing in strength, abusing its newfound power to dominate the political game and rig the game in its favor and the disfavor of the others, until some crisis or war dethrones it and leaves the way for another to rise. That loop has now been complete with the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, signaling the downfall of the Shia era. What next? Two options are presented to us: Either we spiral into civil war and sectarian infighting or we decide to finally build institutions that can better manage the administration of the country, and treat us as citizens with respect and dignity by crafting internal and external policies that aim first and foremost to safeguard the integral sovereignty and dignity of the Lebanese State and its interests and promotes the wellbeing of its citizens.

Great men emerged to lead the efforts of their groups or sects to achieve their vision. Ideas clashed for a century chasing the promise of a fictional utopia that never emerged. Our story cannot be complete without the role of these great leaders that held the ambitions and aspirations of their people to implement their vision of Lebanon, and we must ensure that the sacrifices made are not gone to waste by learning from the mistakes of the past to strive for a better future. It is now time to deal with reality as it is not as we want it to be, by building a state that can care for its citizens and strengthen its hold on its sovereignty. Questions of regional alignments and global relations come next, not the opposite. For without a State, who are we to be able to contact the outside world?

Only after a State and its institutions are established can history run its course and lead to the emergence of a national identity that can dethrone the sectarian nature of the Lebanese political landscape.