In attempting to reform their state, the Lebanese fear the unraveling of their nation. President Obama was well briefed on Lebanon’s fragile, “national unity” government when he received Lebanese President Michel Suleiman on December 14 at the White House.

Vehicles are seen in a traffic jam along a main road after a heavy rainfall in Beirut December 17, 2009. REUTERS/Sharif Karim

In private, the U.S. President demanded from Suleiman to control Hizbullah’s growing military power. Suleiman was advised in advance to respond by raising the issue of Israel’s threats to Beirut’s sovereignty. Both sides agreed to ignore the negative. Obama is getting better and better at ignoring the elephant in the room. Remember? In dealing with Prime Minister Netanyahu, Obama smoothly shelved the unpleasant: Israel’s settlers in the Occupied Territories.
Washington is learning. Obama is aware that Hizbullah’s unruliness in Lebanon is a symptom of the sectarian power structure of the country. Hizbullah is both a resistance and a Shi’a political party. Like Hamas, it is also a product of the festering peace process.

Lebanon is a nation of contradictions. This nation is ironically the most secular and the most sectarian country in the region. The Lebanese are socially integrated and politically segregated.

The Lebanese communities mix in daily living. However, political power is shared according to sectarian, demographic formulas.

Christians and Muslims in Lebanon attend the same schools; they do business and leisure together without thinking much of social background; they live in mixed residential neighborhoods. Lebanon demonstrates that human contact reduces prejudice.

On the other hand, the Lebanese vote, organize power and manage conflict in predictable sectarian patterns. Political systems which conceive society as categories of religious communities create, reinforce and deepen sectarianism in voting, running for office, forming parties and engaging in public service.

To fully integrate the Lebanese citizenry, electoral, personal and family laws have to change. It is the law that rationalizes prejudice and institutionalizes discrimination.

The Lebanese have worked hard to rebuild their country after the fifteen-year sectarian civil war that ended in 1990. Not surprisingly, the current system has its advocates; proponents of the status quo see it as a pragmatic solution, a compromise between Western democracy and widespread Arab autocracy.

But the system has to change; demography changes and undermines the equilibrium of power sharing.

It is easier said than done. There is no public trust that under a secular electoral system people would vote for the best qualified politicians and ignore leaders of their own sect. There is no agreement on the role of the Lebanese diaspora in nation building. Determining who should vote in future national elections could turn into a sectarian “fight.” Finally, secularizing implies loss of privilege to the religious establishment. The clergy wield immense political power; they profit from regulating daily life in education, politics, marriage, death and inheritance.

Nonetheless, the Lebanese can now take preparatory measures to soften attitudes regarding diversity.

Lebanon could rotate top leadership positions among the main confessional groups for a fixed period, say a decade or two. This measure equates the political status of communities and allows for reconciliation and frank exchange about past inequality.

Emigrants with Lebanese passports could vote and participate in the rebuilding and reform. When emigrants are allowed to vote, minority and emigrant communities would regain confidence in Lebanon as being a society that values all citizens.

The school curriculum should offer national civic education and encourage respect for tolerance. In Lebanon, private schools generally offer better education than public facilities. Intensive privatization in education has side effects; some special schools impart conservative religious education and promote a biased understanding of national history. Public education should be an equalizer; its facilities and curriculum should be improved. Civic education should be uniform across the country.

Inter-religious and civil marriage should be accepted. Current Lebanese law recognizes civil marriage if initially registered outside the country. Religious laws are prohibitive in peculiar ways. A Muslim woman cannot marry a Christian man; but a Muslim man can marry a Christian women. Christian men or women are prohibited from wedding Muslims. If mixed marriage is legalized as an “ecumenical union” or a civil union, the country would have a sea change in interfaith attitudes. Since personal and family statutes are based on interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, this aspect of legislation is hard to change; it may be introduced incrementally.

It would perhaps take a full generation to change attitudes and systems before the politics of secular voting could be introduced. Regrettably, the Lebanese are not yet mentally ready for a radical departure from their sectarian status quo.