Latest news with #NadimShehadi
Arab News
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Lebanon's strong civil society model should be preserved
This time it is not our fault. We cannot take the blame for Donald Trump's funding freeze or EU aid cuts. But these will affect Lebanon more than other countries because of the strength of the nongovernmental organizations sector and its dependence on aid. It is chaotic out there in the NGO and civil society world — many risk closure and were not even aware that their grants were originally part of a chain of US Agency for International Development subcontracts. Thousands of lives will be affected and it seems to have happened almost overnight, with little warning. It is not ideal, but the Lebanese have long since had no choice but to learn how to manage with a weak, absent, hijacked or paralyzed state, especially since the civil war. They have done so through civil society, communal and nongovernmental bodies, and the private sector. It has worked for them because it builds on existing traditions and age-old associations. While it is crucial to restore a functioning state, it is even more urgent to rescue society's homegrown institutions. It is not a zero-sum game between the state and civil society — they have learned to work together. To illustrate this, consider the aftermath of the Beirut Port blast of August 2020. The government was in complete paralysis and had actually just resigned, while the banking sector was in collapse mode after the state declared its bankruptcy and defaulted on loan payments. Major hospitals were partly destroyed by the blast and were overwhelmed with casualties. Someday, an admirable story will be told of how society mobilized to help clear up and rebuild and rehouse, feed and care for itself, while no politician even dared show up to face the angry crowds. Lebanon mostly skipped the 20th century, which in other countries of the region was characterized by secular nationalism and strong states. Its politics are a continuation of the Ottoman Empire's system of millets, which was based on recognized semi-autonomous religious communities. This was how the empire managed its diversity, by allowing each community to manage its own affairs, such as education, personal status laws and other services. Lebanese communities had their own schools, hospitals and tribunals and a model gradually evolved in which NGOs worked in partnership with the ministries but sometimes competed with state institutions. While it is crucial to restore a functioning state, it is even more urgent to rescue society's homegrown institutions Nadim Shehadi The system has many critics, especially when communal services are also tied to politicians who use them for votes and clientelism. Defenders of the system argue that religious institutions and even sectarian parties have direct and easier access to recipients and are mostly open to everybody, rather than exclusively being for their constituents. The system can become more equitable with proper state regulation. Over time, large secular NGOs like arcenciel, which helps people with disabilities, created a model to mitigate some of the disadvantages. This formula is based on the principles of rights and access, with the state playing the role of regulator and consumers having a choice of which supplier to go to. This also creates healthy competition that improves quality. The model has even been copied and used by donors in places like Palestine, Algeria and Mozambique. Pierre Issa, the co-founder of arcenciel, explained to me that the name, which is French for rainbow, is written all in lower case because its members do not use capital letters as a sign of humility. Activists of his generation were influenced by Bishop Gregoire Haddad, who once explained to me that social work should be promoted in order to create a responsible society. He said that this intangible outcome was more important to him than the aid itself and that it created a culture of humanity. Smaller NGOs like Skoun Lebanese Addictions Center are in danger of closing down because of both the banking crisis and the international funding crisis. If Skoun were to close, it would mean the loss of 22 years of experience in the field, which would be difficult to replace. The founder of an independent media NGO also told me it had lost 90 percent of its funding and was running a skeleton staff in a bid to avoid closure. The funding crisis has many components, in addition to the sudden and unexpected USAID freeze. USAID was founded in 1961 by the Kennedy administration. This was the beginning of what became known as the development decade, which also saw states in Western Europe join in with the objectives of eradicating poverty, promoting democratic values and, at the time, fighting communism. The proportion of spending on aid increased as military spending decreased with the end of the Cold War and the declaration of a 'new world order' by President George H.W. Bush. Even the World Bank, which normally dealt only with governments, opened a civil society program around that time. The trend continued with increased support for democratization, as well as humanitarian support, and it peaked in the early 2000s. Both the US and the EU had policies to promote democratization and development as a way to combat both immigration and terrorism. But this started to reverse after 2015, with another increase in military spending and decrease in aid. There may be some benefits from a reset triggered by the USAID freeze and the European squeeze Nadim Shehadi There may be some benefits from a reset triggered by the USAID freeze and the European squeeze. The sector, as it grew, became too bureaucratized and inefficient, if not with a certain degree of corruption. One extreme example is where layer upon layer of subcontracting meant that less than 10 percent of the original funding reached actual beneficiaries. The USAID slogan of 'From the American People' had less to do with the American people and more to do with its bureaucrats and taxes. Government aid, which distributes compulsory taxes, also decreases the social responsibility and empathy element that is achieved through voluntary charitable donations. An example of this came in the aftermath of the First World War, when Near East Relief was created to help Armenian and Greek refugees from Turkiye. It raised $110 million, equivalent to $1.25 billion today, from some half a million small donations, all organized by volunteers in the days of snail mail. That was real aid from the American people and the voluntary element was as valuable in terms of international goodwill as the material aid itself. Lebanon is unique in the region for having independent institutions that collaborate efficiently with ministries. It is also almost unique globally for having maintained a strong civil society despite the post-Second World War trend of greater dependence on the role of the state. In fact, that system of state provision has proven to be unsustainable, as the new generation pays far more in taxes for far fewer services. We are hopefully entering a new era in the region with less conflict, but a great deal of work is also needed to repair the damage in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq and Yemen. This should not all be done by governments and state institutions. The Lebanese model of collaboration between state and society helps with the healing of both physical and psychological wounds and it should be preserved. It is proof that wars and hardship can bring out the best in people, as well as the worst.
Arab News
14-04-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Lebanon looks back, but is April 13 best forgotten?
Do we really have to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the start of the Lebanese civil war? We are still too busy still thinking of the more recent conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, and we are not even sure it is over yet. More importantly, the people who fought each other in that so-called civil war are now the staunchest of allies in a political confrontation with Hezbollah about its arms and its role in the current war. What is the point of reminding them that at one point they were killing each other? Memory, as the philosopher Bashshar Haydar explained, is internalized. This ideally means that past events are digested and what remains are the useful lessons, with the useless toxic bits discarded. Historically, the Lebanese norm is a form of amnesia, but ignoring a painful past also means a desire to move on, a will to forgive and forget, of looking forward instead of back. The point is to take measures for it not to happen again, and there are many popular proverbs that support this attitude of 'turning the page,' 'mention it but never repeat it,' 'stuff it in the saddle bag,' and ignore it. This is not South Africa with truth commissions and accountability, unsure how it helps the healing if you have to reopen old wounds. Accountability also needs a clear picture of the guilty party, which may not help if you have to find a way of living together again. Clarity is also overrated — each side deals with the truth in their own way, and there develops a common language. After the 1860 massacres in Mount Lebanon there was an agreement that 'what is past is past' and the parties resisted European suggestions of separate cantons. The result was a formula for coexistence that remains to this day, a council with representation from all communities, and where none can dominate over the others. This was repeated over the years: in the constitution of 1926, the National Pact of 1943 and the Taif agreement of 1989. The Lebanese love their freedom to the point of anarchy Nadim Shehadi In 2005, during the Cedar Revolution, demonstrators asked for the truth and for accountability via a UN-sponsored investigation and a Special Tribunal for Lebanon. But when the truth came and was confirmed by the tribunal, it was too hot to handle and was quietly ignored. Nobody is asking for accountability; the truth became a memory, and was internalized, and we moved on. Agreements are, of course, always broken, and they are repaired or patched up with slogans such as 'no victor and no vanquished'' after 1958, 'one Lebanon and not two,' or the Baabda Declaration of 2012 where the different parties pledged to recuse themselves from following their instincts to interfere in the Syrian war and respect Lebanese sovereignty. This was again broken by Hezbollah, which not only joined the action in Syria, but also dragged the country into another destructive war with Israel. A new generation seems to think differently and is asking. what is wrong with us? Hezbollah did not exist before 1982, so it cannot be the only problem. They are asking for a radical revision of the system almost to the point of destroying it. The revolt of October 2019 had a nihilistic and populist bent to it; the masses were shouting slogans against the whole political class, political parties, banks, the economic system, and the power-sharing formula which they describe as sectarianism. Some even ask for a strong leader, an Ataturk or a benevolent dictator because we have all failed and deserve no better. What they seem to be asking for resembles nothing in Lebanon. But my hope is that through these discussions they will end up appreciating their history better and maintaining the spirit of the power-sharing formula that characterizes the country. What makes me optimistic is that sometimes there is a difference between what people think, what they say, and what they end up doing. The best way to understand this is to observe what is happening now. Hezbollah is not being held responsible — there are no calls for accountability for the destruction, deaths and human suffering that resulted from a war that it chose to wage with no consultation with the rest of the country. It is not being asked for damages; the whole country is accepting it will assume responsibility for reconstruction. Instead Hezbollah is being encouraged to apply the Taif Agreement by disarming and joining the political process. It is a subconscious repetition of the old slogans, letting bygones be bygones, 'the past is past,' there are 'no winners and no losers,' and there is 'one Lebanon, not two.' During the war this fall, displaced Hezbollah supporters were received with open arms, even in the areas that opposed it most. Those who fought each other are now the staunchest of allies Nadim Shehadi It is almost like a selective memory is paving the way again for an eventual amnesia, forgetting what happened and moving on. Even though it sounds like I am advocating against the commemoration of April 13, I find one reasoning for doing so to be valid, that of historian Makram Rabah of the American University of Beirut. Rabah, who specializes in memory and oral history, advocates for the commemoration in order to avoid the misuse of memory by spoilers and trouble-makers. This does not necessarily mean that there should be an official common account of history, but of a continuous discussion of a variety of perspectives. One danger is that an official version of a common history has sometimes accompanied the call for memory. This is done with the best of intentions — such as the aim to maintain social cohesiveness and preserve national unity, sovereignty, and equality among citizens, similar to Kemalist Turkiye. This can, in fact, hinder a positive discussion, with anyone who thinks critically of the official version then accused of fomenting division and becoming a threat to national unity and social cohesion. Then the common version becomes like an oppressive big brother-type narrative, with its own vocabulary that no one can question. Another obvious conclusion to avoid is that there is a zero-sum game between freedom and security. The Lebanese love their freedom to the point of anarchy. But when chaos sets in, they become more accepting of authority to the point they also tolerate limits to their freedoms. The argument is that both the PLO in the 1960s and Hezbollah as states within a state were regional phenomena which could only flourish in Lebanon because of the weak state and excessive freedom. Neither could have succeeded in an authoritarian society such Assad's Syria or Saddam's Iraq, but we should also avoid moving toward seeing them as desirable models.
