This is a historic day for mankind, a new era in the story of skyscrapers begins with the completion of Burj Dubai expected to be around 818 meters tall. It is almost a kilometer long of flats, offices, hotels and commercial space breaking every single record and in the process pushing construction technology to new realms. Rather than celebrate this achievement, most critics have treated this as an opportunity to kick Dubai while it suffers from a serious financial crisis, spewing all kinds of venom against its ambition and desire to push the boundaries. It is no surprise that these poisonous attacks are coated in the language of environmental concerns and social justice, we have become accustomed by now to this type of low-aspiration and reactionary critique masquerading as progressive thought. But those sour grapes should remember that history is not written instantly no matter how hard they wish Dubai to fail monumentally. If anyone had written New York off in the 30s and predicted that the depression meant its end, they would have been completely wrong. The city prospered again, and so will Dubai.
Middle East politics, culture and satire.
17 Dec 2009
قمة كوبنهاغن و التغير المناخي : بداية عصر الاستعمار البيئي - كارل شرو
يحوز التغير المناخي على الكثير من النقاش في بلدان الغرب و يمكن الجزم بأنه يمثل قضية العصر من غير منازع. يمكن مثلا النظر إلى حجم التغطية الإعلامية التي تحظى بها قمة كوبنهاغن المنعقدة حاليا في العاصمة الدانمركية بإشراف الأمم المتحدة لمكافحة التأثيرات المتوقعة للتغيير المناخي التي ارتفعت وتيرتها بشكل محموم. قامت وسائل الإعلام الغربية بالتمهيد لهذه القمة ووصفتها بأنها الفرصة الأخيرة لإنقاذ البشرية من مفاعيل التغير المناخي ثم رفعت مستوى تغطيتها خلال الأيام الأخيرة بشكل منقطع النظير. في المقابل، لم تبد وسائل الإعلام العربية نفس القدر من الاهتمام بقمة كوبنهاغن، ما عدا مقالات منفردة هنا و هناك. واللافت في التغطية الإعلامية العربية أنها تظهر بعيدة عن مغالاة الإعلام الغربي وتبدو كأنها بعيدة إلى حد ما عن قضية المناخ. لا حرج في ذلك، فقضية التغير المناخي قضية مستوردة كما أساليب تغطيتها ولغة الكتابة عنها التي تعاني اثأر التعريب الفج. غير إن الابتعاد عن هذه القضية ترف لا يمكن للصحافة العربية أن تتجاهله مطولا، ليس من باب مجاراة الهرع الغربي و هستيريا نهاية العالم التي تجتاحه بل تصديا لمفاعيل هذه القمة و سياسة المناخ عموما التي سيكون لها تأثيرات سيئة على اقتصادات الدول العربية لو بقي العرب في موقع المتفرجين في موضوع التغير المناخي. ائمل آن يكون هذا المقال بداية نقاش عقلاني لموضوع المناخ يبتعد عن الانغلاق الذي يعانيه هذا النقاش في الغرب و يفتح باب التصدي لما سأجادل بأنه مشروع استعمار بيئي ستنتجه قمة كوبنهاغن إذا نجحت بترسيخ مفاهيم التقشف التي يروج لها ألان
2 Jul 2009
The Return of Primitivism in Architecture or Godzilla's Furball: MOS and P.S.1 Afterparty
The winners of this year's MoMA and P.S.1's Young Architects Program, MOS, titled their project 'Afetrparty'; 'Wake' would have been a far better description. The deceased is Modern architecture and all that it ever represented: ambition, experimentation, industrial techniques, and rationality. 'Afterparty' is the antithesis of all those concepts: random, reactionary, patronising and furry. P.S.1 had paved the way for this abomination with last year's winning entry 'Public Farm' by WORK architecture company, an exercise in autarky wrapped in a text whose level of naivety is hardly matched outside a Miss America contest. The trend can only intensify in the coming years, although it is hard to imagine anything more dreadfully reactionary than 'Afterparty'.
According to the New York Times the project is 'a mix of what could be described as cones, domes, smokestacks, primitive huts, towers or industrial chimneys.' Primitive hut would have done: the project's main distinguishing feature is its primitivism that, like biodynamic agriculture, represents a yearning for pre-modernity masquerading as radicalism. The project is so imprecise and accidental formally and organisationally that it is completely open for interpretation: this is the Rorschach Test of architecture, a three-dimensional accident of shapes or a giant furball thrown up by Godzilla after a night of rampage in a hippie market.
Michael Meredith of MOS said the structures were meant to evoke the fading factory vernacular of the P.S. 1 area in Long Island City. “We’re interested in building typologies,” he said. They must have tried very hard to resist showing this interest in 'Afterparty'. Rather than evoking the 'factory vernacular' the project is symptomatic of America's ending love affair with industrialisation. For the second time in the space of a few decades America is losing nerve and turning to imported ideas from Europe for inspiration, the Green assault has truly began in the US. Three years ago it would have been really hard to find advocates of sustainability outside Hippie communities in Nevada, now architects are competing really hard to learn the New Speak of the environmentalist dogma.
The connection between declining production and the recession has still not been grasped in America, so it's not strange to see MOS trying to pass off their cheap knock-off of a primitive village as a thoughtful response to the economic situation. There is still talk of an 'economic party' and an 'economic hangover', isn't it fun how eco-geeks always try to use words like party and hangover to pretend that they are cool? It still hasn't dawned on American intellectuals that financial hyper-activity is not equivalent to productive economic activity, never mind they are still willing to throw the baby out with the bath water, let them eat biscuits. The result in architecture? MOS's masterpiece, a monument to garage sales and Sunday markets across the land, where the fetishistic value of recycled materials is elevated above real innovation in architecture.
The architects are obviously free to present whatever design they come up with, the real blame falls on P.S.1 and MoMA for encouraging and supporting this trend towards reactionary architecture and celebrating it as good architecture. This is not a one-off, it's a trend that started with last year's project and is bound to continue as long as architects will continue to pursue this obsessive form of self-harm that is passed off as 'environmental responsibility'. Solving challenging economic and environmental problems requires innovative thinking and advanced technologies, not the escape from modernity that is represented by projects like 'Afterparty'. Let's interrupt this assault on Modernity before it escalates into a full return to primitivism.
According to the New York Times the project is 'a mix of what could be described as cones, domes, smokestacks, primitive huts, towers or industrial chimneys.' Primitive hut would have done: the project's main distinguishing feature is its primitivism that, like biodynamic agriculture, represents a yearning for pre-modernity masquerading as radicalism. The project is so imprecise and accidental formally and organisationally that it is completely open for interpretation: this is the Rorschach Test of architecture, a three-dimensional accident of shapes or a giant furball thrown up by Godzilla after a night of rampage in a hippie market.
Michael Meredith of MOS said the structures were meant to evoke the fading factory vernacular of the P.S. 1 area in Long Island City. “We’re interested in building typologies,” he said. They must have tried very hard to resist showing this interest in 'Afterparty'. Rather than evoking the 'factory vernacular' the project is symptomatic of America's ending love affair with industrialisation. For the second time in the space of a few decades America is losing nerve and turning to imported ideas from Europe for inspiration, the Green assault has truly began in the US. Three years ago it would have been really hard to find advocates of sustainability outside Hippie communities in Nevada, now architects are competing really hard to learn the New Speak of the environmentalist dogma.
The connection between declining production and the recession has still not been grasped in America, so it's not strange to see MOS trying to pass off their cheap knock-off of a primitive village as a thoughtful response to the economic situation. There is still talk of an 'economic party' and an 'economic hangover', isn't it fun how eco-geeks always try to use words like party and hangover to pretend that they are cool? It still hasn't dawned on American intellectuals that financial hyper-activity is not equivalent to productive economic activity, never mind they are still willing to throw the baby out with the bath water, let them eat biscuits. The result in architecture? MOS's masterpiece, a monument to garage sales and Sunday markets across the land, where the fetishistic value of recycled materials is elevated above real innovation in architecture.
The architects are obviously free to present whatever design they come up with, the real blame falls on P.S.1 and MoMA for encouraging and supporting this trend towards reactionary architecture and celebrating it as good architecture. This is not a one-off, it's a trend that started with last year's project and is bound to continue as long as architects will continue to pursue this obsessive form of self-harm that is passed off as 'environmental responsibility'. Solving challenging economic and environmental problems requires innovative thinking and advanced technologies, not the escape from modernity that is represented by projects like 'Afterparty'. Let's interrupt this assault on Modernity before it escalates into a full return to primitivism.
28 Jun 2009
As Mad as Madoff: The Mystification of Money
The curious case of Bernard Madoff has become a symbol for the moral lessons that people are trying to draw out of the recession, in fact it only reveals how esoteric the discussion about the economy has become. We've heard very little so far about the structural reasons behind the recession, but we've been flooded by an outpouring of moralistic 'observations' about greed and excess that are apparently behind the economic decline. The case of Madoff is being used to illustrate all the ills of unrestrained capitalism that put us in this position. All that it reveals in fact is how money has now acquired a mystical status that is divorced from any real economic analysis.
The case of Madoff does expose some of the failures of capitalism, but they have nothing to do with the popular and media perception of what the real problems are. The investors who lost their savings with Madoff, and bare in mind that many of those were large international institutions and banks and not only individual investors, revealed how little they knew about what their money was actually invested in. For conservative banks like HSBC to lose money with Madoff it must mean that all their 'safety checks' had some how failed. But this is not a result of malicious intent or unnecessary risk-taking, although it illustrates how the relationship between actual productive enterprise and generating value has been seriously compromised.
The investors with Madoff were looking for magic, somehow they convinced themselves that it is possible to generate serious returns on their investment through Madoff's talents. There is a serious abdication of responsibility here but more importantly an indication of a symptomatic problem: the correlation between productive economic activity and making money has been suspended in the minds of many to detrimental effect. Of course it is unfair to single out investors with Madoff when Western governments had been promoting this folly for many years now. Somehow, the Gordon Browns of the world had managed to convince themselves that in the 'New Economy' value could be generated through an economy that is disproportionately dependant on services and finance in particular.
When the media interviews Madoff's 'victims' they always reveal a common attitude that drew them to Madoff in the first place. They had been looking for the 'holy grail' of investments and Madoff's clever ploys convinced them that he possessed it. The aura of respectability and exclusivity must have enhanced Maddof's appeal, but the real problem is that those investors were already in the position of looking for this type of investment. To mistake that for greed would miss the point, who wouldn't like to make easy and lucrative returns on their money after all?
There is a much deeper problem that could explain not only Madoff's case but some of the wider problems in the economy: the mystification of money. Ponzi schemes are not a new thing, and people have always looked for magical returns on their investments. But for a Ponzi scheme to trick some of the largest institutions in the world and a multitude of regulators, there must be a deeper problem at work. The symptoms of mystification of money were already apparent after the dot com bubble burst at the end of the 90s, but very few people understood that problem in its proper context. The correlation between productive economic activity and generating value had been so severely eroded and compromised that the whole episode was treated as a passing problem instead of a symptom of a deeper crisis within Western economies.
It's not an exaggeration to say that the delusion still persists today. Many people are pinning their hopes on the recovery of the stock markets as if the market along can stand in for the wider economy. Stock markets are good indicators of the health of certain companies and sectors under normal conditions, but their value has been completely exaggerated and divorced from an understanding of other economic indicators and the productivity of the economy as a whole. Central banks and governments have reinforced these misleading trends with their over-reliance on monetary and financial measures to stimulate the economy, starting with the fiddling with interest rates through to bail-outs.
The lessons that should be learned from the Madoff affair is that money should be demystified, and the esoteric discussion about greed needs to be replaced with a discussion about the structural reasons for economic recession. Moral parables will not provide the adequate framework for understanding the real problems, only a cold analysis of the state of capitalism today could offer a solution.
The case of Madoff does expose some of the failures of capitalism, but they have nothing to do with the popular and media perception of what the real problems are. The investors who lost their savings with Madoff, and bare in mind that many of those were large international institutions and banks and not only individual investors, revealed how little they knew about what their money was actually invested in. For conservative banks like HSBC to lose money with Madoff it must mean that all their 'safety checks' had some how failed. But this is not a result of malicious intent or unnecessary risk-taking, although it illustrates how the relationship between actual productive enterprise and generating value has been seriously compromised.
The investors with Madoff were looking for magic, somehow they convinced themselves that it is possible to generate serious returns on their investment through Madoff's talents. There is a serious abdication of responsibility here but more importantly an indication of a symptomatic problem: the correlation between productive economic activity and making money has been suspended in the minds of many to detrimental effect. Of course it is unfair to single out investors with Madoff when Western governments had been promoting this folly for many years now. Somehow, the Gordon Browns of the world had managed to convince themselves that in the 'New Economy' value could be generated through an economy that is disproportionately dependant on services and finance in particular.
When the media interviews Madoff's 'victims' they always reveal a common attitude that drew them to Madoff in the first place. They had been looking for the 'holy grail' of investments and Madoff's clever ploys convinced them that he possessed it. The aura of respectability and exclusivity must have enhanced Maddof's appeal, but the real problem is that those investors were already in the position of looking for this type of investment. To mistake that for greed would miss the point, who wouldn't like to make easy and lucrative returns on their money after all?
There is a much deeper problem that could explain not only Madoff's case but some of the wider problems in the economy: the mystification of money. Ponzi schemes are not a new thing, and people have always looked for magical returns on their investments. But for a Ponzi scheme to trick some of the largest institutions in the world and a multitude of regulators, there must be a deeper problem at work. The symptoms of mystification of money were already apparent after the dot com bubble burst at the end of the 90s, but very few people understood that problem in its proper context. The correlation between productive economic activity and generating value had been so severely eroded and compromised that the whole episode was treated as a passing problem instead of a symptom of a deeper crisis within Western economies.
It's not an exaggeration to say that the delusion still persists today. Many people are pinning their hopes on the recovery of the stock markets as if the market along can stand in for the wider economy. Stock markets are good indicators of the health of certain companies and sectors under normal conditions, but their value has been completely exaggerated and divorced from an understanding of other economic indicators and the productivity of the economy as a whole. Central banks and governments have reinforced these misleading trends with their over-reliance on monetary and financial measures to stimulate the economy, starting with the fiddling with interest rates through to bail-outs.
The lessons that should be learned from the Madoff affair is that money should be demystified, and the esoteric discussion about greed needs to be replaced with a discussion about the structural reasons for economic recession. Moral parables will not provide the adequate framework for understanding the real problems, only a cold analysis of the state of capitalism today could offer a solution.
26 Jun 2009
Michael Jackson: Eccentricity is not a crime
So Jacko's gone, and the eulogies begin. The media that has for so long fed off the 'king of pop' and his tumultuous life are now trying to milk one more story out of Michael Jackson. The BBC was quick to shift into tabloid mode, interviewing anyone that has ever caught a whiff of Michael Jackson or even saw his reflection in a water puddle. Even Gordon Brown, ever eager to shelter in other people's glow, has come up with one of his pathetic statements lamenting the loss of the mega-star that was Michael Jackson. Shameful stuff, it's time to leave the man along and let his family deal with what is after all a private tragedy.
There is one important lesson to be drawn our of Michael's bizarre life: eccentricity is not a crime. The media, shallow, populist and superficial, doggedly hounded Michael Jackson throughout his life, but sank to miserable lows when the allegations of abuse against him became public. In the most despicable example of trial by media, journalists used Michael's eccentricity to prove his guilt time after time, but they were ultimately defeated by the decision of a jury of his peers to clear him the last time around. God bless America and the right to trial by jury, not by a media that has forgotten a long time ago what the pursuit of truth means.
Michael Jackson took eccentricity to new levels, and he was certainly conscious of public attention. Yet, there is a difference between being eccentric and breaking the law. Michael's eccentricity was gloriously audacious, he treated his body as a moldable entity shunning decaying flesh for the sake of plastic longevity. That is part of his appeal, with each re-invention a new Michael emerged, the ultimate fulfillment of the desires of a ravenous fan-base. Bare in mind that Michael Jackson managed to survive decades in the music business, whereas many of his contemporaries dropped off the scene a long time ago. He did not live long enough to have yet another come back, but no doubt it would have been equally amazing for his fans.
Michael's eccentricity was part of his appeal, and the media savagely turned that against him but the public stood by him. Now as the fake tears and the insincere eulogies start, let us remember that the most important thing to take out of Michael's life is that eccentricity is not a crime.
There is one important lesson to be drawn our of Michael's bizarre life: eccentricity is not a crime. The media, shallow, populist and superficial, doggedly hounded Michael Jackson throughout his life, but sank to miserable lows when the allegations of abuse against him became public. In the most despicable example of trial by media, journalists used Michael's eccentricity to prove his guilt time after time, but they were ultimately defeated by the decision of a jury of his peers to clear him the last time around. God bless America and the right to trial by jury, not by a media that has forgotten a long time ago what the pursuit of truth means.
Michael Jackson took eccentricity to new levels, and he was certainly conscious of public attention. Yet, there is a difference between being eccentric and breaking the law. Michael's eccentricity was gloriously audacious, he treated his body as a moldable entity shunning decaying flesh for the sake of plastic longevity. That is part of his appeal, with each re-invention a new Michael emerged, the ultimate fulfillment of the desires of a ravenous fan-base. Bare in mind that Michael Jackson managed to survive decades in the music business, whereas many of his contemporaries dropped off the scene a long time ago. He did not live long enough to have yet another come back, but no doubt it would have been equally amazing for his fans.
Michael's eccentricity was part of his appeal, and the media savagely turned that against him but the public stood by him. Now as the fake tears and the insincere eulogies start, let us remember that the most important thing to take out of Michael's life is that eccentricity is not a crime.
16 Jun 2009
Has the Counter-Revolution started in Iran?
Let me begin with a salute to the Iranian people who have shown great courage against the Iranian regime's thugs and have managed so far to out-smart the Mullah brigades and continue their display of popular anger and discontent. This is no mean feat, Ahmadenejad's supporters will go to extreme lengths to suppress this budding uprising, and the protesters can only fight back with courage and determination. They genuinely deserve our support and solidarity.
As the world watches the escalating situation in Tehran with anticipation, many are speculating that this could be the end of the road for the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Only the Iranian people can determine the outcome of this struggle, and their will can certainly overcome the Basiji and the Revolutionary Guard. But let's put this in perspective, this is not an outright challenge to the system itself but a manifestation of the friction between the competing factions that have existed within the ranks of the rulers of the Islamic Republic since its foundation. Mir Hossein Mousavi, the candidate whom the demonstrators believe should have won the elections, was Prime Minister of Iran throughout its war with Iraq in the 80s. He's certainly not a critic of the Islamic Republic itself, he represents a different outlook among the ranks of the Iranian establishment that is opposed to Ahmadinejad and his backers.
The difference between the two men and what they represent embodies the tension that was inherent within the Islamic Revolution since its early days. Should the revolution be exported to other countries or should Iran focus on sorting out its own affairs? Nation state or revolutionary cause, what path should Iran follow? The question has never been settled conclusively, and the response to it has largely shaped Iran's foreign and domestic policy and continues to do so. Today however, the commitment to exporting the revolution is not an active project, but it remains an important rhetorical and ideological device that Ahmadinejad and his allies within the regime draw their legitimacy from. But despite his loud proclamations, Ahmadinejad is not the mad figure that is portrayed in the West. His noisy rhetoric is partially an attempt to mask his incompetence at managing the economy and running the country smoothly.
Against this background, it is easy to understand the appeal of Mousavi, a wealthy and successful man but also one who ran the economy efficiently during his term as prime minister. He represented something more immediate to Iranian voters than overthrowing the regime, namely competent management of the country and the economy and mild reformism. Having said that, no one can say for sure what direction public anger can take and if the crowds in Iran get a measure of their own power they might attempt to topple the system. There is a real barrier against this, the opposition to the Islamic Republic is not organised and any challenge to the system itself will draw the reformers closer to their opponents within the regime in order to protect the Islamic Republic from collapsing.
Western intervention at this stage, particularly by the Americans, will certainly not be in favour of the opposition that is taking shape day by day. The regime will portray the public demonstrators as agents of the West and galvanize support among the hardliners whose numbers run in the millions as well. What is important to realize at this stage is that this is a matter for the Iranian people to decide upon and they alone are responsible for determining the kind of society they want to live in.
It is easy to get carried away when watching millions protesting, but let's not turn this into a personal fantasy. The most likely outcome of this episode is that the regime will back down and appease the protesters one way or the other, and desktop revolutionaries everywhere will have their hearts broken with yet another 'spring' failing to induce real political change. Real change can only come through political organisation, let's get busy with that.
As the world watches the escalating situation in Tehran with anticipation, many are speculating that this could be the end of the road for the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Only the Iranian people can determine the outcome of this struggle, and their will can certainly overcome the Basiji and the Revolutionary Guard. But let's put this in perspective, this is not an outright challenge to the system itself but a manifestation of the friction between the competing factions that have existed within the ranks of the rulers of the Islamic Republic since its foundation. Mir Hossein Mousavi, the candidate whom the demonstrators believe should have won the elections, was Prime Minister of Iran throughout its war with Iraq in the 80s. He's certainly not a critic of the Islamic Republic itself, he represents a different outlook among the ranks of the Iranian establishment that is opposed to Ahmadinejad and his backers.
The difference between the two men and what they represent embodies the tension that was inherent within the Islamic Revolution since its early days. Should the revolution be exported to other countries or should Iran focus on sorting out its own affairs? Nation state or revolutionary cause, what path should Iran follow? The question has never been settled conclusively, and the response to it has largely shaped Iran's foreign and domestic policy and continues to do so. Today however, the commitment to exporting the revolution is not an active project, but it remains an important rhetorical and ideological device that Ahmadinejad and his allies within the regime draw their legitimacy from. But despite his loud proclamations, Ahmadinejad is not the mad figure that is portrayed in the West. His noisy rhetoric is partially an attempt to mask his incompetence at managing the economy and running the country smoothly.
Against this background, it is easy to understand the appeal of Mousavi, a wealthy and successful man but also one who ran the economy efficiently during his term as prime minister. He represented something more immediate to Iranian voters than overthrowing the regime, namely competent management of the country and the economy and mild reformism. Having said that, no one can say for sure what direction public anger can take and if the crowds in Iran get a measure of their own power they might attempt to topple the system. There is a real barrier against this, the opposition to the Islamic Republic is not organised and any challenge to the system itself will draw the reformers closer to their opponents within the regime in order to protect the Islamic Republic from collapsing.
Western intervention at this stage, particularly by the Americans, will certainly not be in favour of the opposition that is taking shape day by day. The regime will portray the public demonstrators as agents of the West and galvanize support among the hardliners whose numbers run in the millions as well. What is important to realize at this stage is that this is a matter for the Iranian people to decide upon and they alone are responsible for determining the kind of society they want to live in.
It is easy to get carried away when watching millions protesting, but let's not turn this into a personal fantasy. The most likely outcome of this episode is that the regime will back down and appease the protesters one way or the other, and desktop revolutionaries everywhere will have their hearts broken with yet another 'spring' failing to induce real political change. Real change can only come through political organisation, let's get busy with that.
15 Jun 2009
لا دفاعا عن الطائفية لكن ...
لا دفاعا عن الطائفية لكن ...
كارل شرو
انتهت عملية الانتخابات اللبنانية و آلت إلى ما آلت إليه. أعادت تثبيت ميزان القوى نفسه الذي ساد خلال الأعوام الأربعة الماضية و أنهت الكثير من التكهنات التي بان عدم صوابها. قال الناخبون اللبنانيون كلمتهم بشكل حاسم لا مجال لسوء تأويله، رغم أن هذا لا يمنع الكثيرين من محاولة طي الواقع كي يلاءم تطلعاتهم. بالأمس حاولوا تصوير الغالبية النيابية على أنها غالبية وهمية واليوم بدا الكلام عن غالبية شعبية لا تتساوى مع الغالبية النيابية. وسائل التذاكي على نتائج الانتخاب كثيرة في لبنان يحركها عدم احترام الديمقراطية وعدم ممارستها كأساس للسياسة.
برغم ذلك فان عملية الانتخابات نفسها، بغض النظر عن الانتهاكات التي لا تخلو منها أية انتخابات لبنانية، عبرت فعلا عن الإرادة الشعبية على تعدد أهوائها ومشاربها. قال الكثيرون بان الفائز الأكبر بهذه الانتخابات هو منطق الطوائف التي عادت لتحكم سيطرتها على السياسة اللبنانية، وهذا استنتاج دقيق عموما. أثبتت قيادات الطوائف اللبنانية على أنها الأقدر على مخاطبة جماهيرها و تحفيزها على المشاركة اقتراعا و تنظيما في انتخابات خالها البعض مصيرية.
عّبرت عناوين الصحف اللبنانية عموما عن هذا التقييم، رأت الإخبار إنها "الطوائف إن حَكَت" و اتفقت معظم الصحف الأخرى معها. غير إن ما فات الكثيرين ولم يلتفت إليه أي من السياسيين أو الصحافيين إن هذه المعادلة الطائفية لم تشكل استمرارا لنمط الطائفية الذي ساد في لبنان لعقود بل إنها أنتجت بطريقة جديدة يمكن الجزم بأنها تجاري مسار اشتباك الاجتماع و السياسة الذي تبلور منذ نهاية الحرب الباردة عالميا. تميز هذا المسار عموما بانهيار القيم الكونية في السياسة و الفلسفة على حد سواء و تراجع الصراع الطبقي لصالح منطق الخصوصيات الثقافية و مطالبها السياسية و الاجتماعية. كان اليسار عموما هو الخاسر الأكبر في هذه المعادلة فخسر جمهوره وانتقل الكثيرون من كوادره إلى صفوف مجموعات عرقية أو ثقافية و ساد منطق التعدد الثقافي على منطق المواطنة و المساواة.
صاحب عنوان "الطوائف إن حَكَت" نفسه إبراهيم الأمين خرج من صفوف اليسار اللبناني إلى صفوف محبذي حزب الله وانتقل معه الكثيرون من شيعة اليسار اللبناني الذين شكلوا نواة الحزب الذي نعرفه اليوم. شكل هؤلاء جزء من حركة انتقال اكبر شهدت عودة الكثير من اليساريين إلى صفوف طوائفهم وان تفاوت مدى التزامهم بالتوجه السياسي العام لهذه الطوائف. تكمن المفارقة بان ما ارتضاه هؤلاء خيارا سياسيا لأنفسهم عابوه لدى الآخرين و اعتبروه ضربا من المذهبية و الانقسام. الخطأ الذي وقع فيه الكثيرون من يساريي الطوائف هو أن الانحراف عن الخط العلماني الصرف يسلبهم حق انتقاد الطائفية و ممارسيها، فهم قد أصبحوا جزا أساسيا من التركيبة الطائفية بمعناها الأوسع.
حاول البعض رغم ذلك الاعتراض على بعض نتائج الانتخابات و ما سبقها بوصفها شحنا مذهبيا و تكريسا للانقسام. ومن بدائع اللغة و التفكير على هذا النمط الحديث عن الطائفية بوصفها خلل نفسي مثل ما تعبر عبارة "محي الطائفية من النفوس" الذي يكثر استعمالها في لبنان. هذه سذاجة لا مكان لها في السياسة، فالسياسي أو المعلق ليس طبيبا نفسيا ليأخذ على عاتقه مسؤولية معالجة الشعب اللبناني من إمراضه. تعبر هذه النظرة عن ازدراء هؤلاء لجمهور السياسة في لبنان و عدم مخاطبته كجمهور يمكنه ممارسة خيارات سياسية واعية. جل ما يمكن لهذا الجمهور فعله هو الانتقاء بين الخيارات السياسية المطروحة عليه، وكلنا نعرف قلة المعروض وفقر تطلعات العارضين.
ما لا يفهمه الكثير من أصحاب اللغة و السياسة في لبنان إن الطائفية شيء و التعصب شيء أخر. يوجد التعصب حتى في أكثر المجتمعات علمانية لكن هذا لا علاقة له بالسياسة. الطائفية تعني تنظيما سياسيا-اجتماعيا يتركب على صورة المجموعات التي تشكل هذا المجتمع و يوفر لها وسيلة لتنظيم علاقاتها. بهذا المعنى فان معظم اللبنانيين و معظم ساستهم و معلقيهم هم من محبذي هذا النظام الطائفي الذي ارتضوه حكما و حاكما على أحوالهم. وبعد لا يمكن لبعضهم انتقاد البعض الأخر إن غالوا في التحمس لهذا النظام بالدرجة التي أنتجت التحاما كليا بين الطوائف و قياداتها في الانتخابات الأخيرة. هذه النهاية المنطقية لهذا النظام، و جل ما فعله اللبنانيون إنهم ساروا بهذا المطاف إلى مداه الأقصى. فقد الذين جاروا هذا النظام قدرة الاعتراض عليه لحظة قبولهم بيه و تخليهم عن العلمانية مسارا مخالفا و مغايرا لنهج الطائفية.
هذا سبب من أسباب تضعضع اليسار و العلمانية في لبنان اليوم لكنه ليس حكرا على اللبنانيين. يفوت الكثير من ديمقراطيي اليسار في لبنان إن النظام الطائفي الذين يشكونه هو وجه أخر للتعددية الثقافية التي يمتدحوها لدى المجتمعات الغربية، يتميز عنها فقط بترسخ جذوره السياسية و القانونية. هواة التعددية هؤلاء يخالون التعددية نفسها أمر جيدا و يغالون بامتداحها. لكن التعددية الثقافية تختلف كليا عن تعدد الآراء و الوجهات السياسية، فالأولى يمكن لها أن تنتج مجتمعا راكدا تنعدم فيه العلاقات بين هذه المجموعات أما تعدد الآراء و التعبير عنها يتيح للمجتمع إمكانية التغيير و التقدم و خروج الأفراد عن إرادة مجموعاتهم.
المنحى التي تتخذه الطائفية في لبنان اليوم هو محاكاة أفكار التعددية في الغرب و الاحتفال بالخصوصيات الثقافية لطوائف الاجتماع اللبناني و المغالاة بالدفاع عن مصالحها و الخوف من تهديدات وجودية لها تتراءى في مخيلة البعض كلما خرج التخاطب بين هذه الطوائف عن حدود التهذيب المعهود. لكن الحقيقة انه ليس لدى أية من الطوائف اللبنانية الكبرى اليوم مشروع هيمنة يشبه المشاريع السابقة الذي كان أبرزها المشروع الماروني. تبّدى هذا عموما بعد الانتخابات عندما عمد معظم الأطراف إلى خفض وتيرة التخاطب و المطالب وعادوا عموما إلى البحث عن صيغة لمشاركة الحكم بشروط ترضي جميع الإطراف. هذه حدود السياسة في الصيغة الجديدة لطائفية النظام اللبناني التي قد تتذبذب على وقع متغيرات دولية و إقليمية لكنها ستبقى ضمن هذا الإطار، فهذه حدود مخيلة الطوائف بحلتها الجديدة ما بعد الحداثية.
هل علينا أن نرتضي بهذا الواقع بوصفه تعبيرا عن إرادة الشعب اللبناني و خلاصة طموحاته ؟ هذا تفكير انهزامي قبوله يعني قبول سلطة المنطق الطائفي التي تبقى علته الأساسية تقييده لدينامكية المجتمع و فرص تقدمه كما رأينا و سنرى. بداية علينا أن نفقه أن الطائفية هي مشكلة سياسية لا نفسية و مقاومتها تكون بالسياسة و الأفكار الجديدة لا بعلم النفس. ثم علينا أن نعي أن القبول بمنطقها يعني التخلي عن موقع نحن بأشد الحاجة إليه هو موقع العلمانية بوصفها جزا من مشروع سياسي لا صفة شخصية مستحبة. عسى أن يكون مأزق النظام الطائفي عتبتنا إلى السياسة.
كارل شرو
انتهت عملية الانتخابات اللبنانية و آلت إلى ما آلت إليه. أعادت تثبيت ميزان القوى نفسه الذي ساد خلال الأعوام الأربعة الماضية و أنهت الكثير من التكهنات التي بان عدم صوابها. قال الناخبون اللبنانيون كلمتهم بشكل حاسم لا مجال لسوء تأويله، رغم أن هذا لا يمنع الكثيرين من محاولة طي الواقع كي يلاءم تطلعاتهم. بالأمس حاولوا تصوير الغالبية النيابية على أنها غالبية وهمية واليوم بدا الكلام عن غالبية شعبية لا تتساوى مع الغالبية النيابية. وسائل التذاكي على نتائج الانتخاب كثيرة في لبنان يحركها عدم احترام الديمقراطية وعدم ممارستها كأساس للسياسة.
برغم ذلك فان عملية الانتخابات نفسها، بغض النظر عن الانتهاكات التي لا تخلو منها أية انتخابات لبنانية، عبرت فعلا عن الإرادة الشعبية على تعدد أهوائها ومشاربها. قال الكثيرون بان الفائز الأكبر بهذه الانتخابات هو منطق الطوائف التي عادت لتحكم سيطرتها على السياسة اللبنانية، وهذا استنتاج دقيق عموما. أثبتت قيادات الطوائف اللبنانية على أنها الأقدر على مخاطبة جماهيرها و تحفيزها على المشاركة اقتراعا و تنظيما في انتخابات خالها البعض مصيرية.
عّبرت عناوين الصحف اللبنانية عموما عن هذا التقييم، رأت الإخبار إنها "الطوائف إن حَكَت" و اتفقت معظم الصحف الأخرى معها. غير إن ما فات الكثيرين ولم يلتفت إليه أي من السياسيين أو الصحافيين إن هذه المعادلة الطائفية لم تشكل استمرارا لنمط الطائفية الذي ساد في لبنان لعقود بل إنها أنتجت بطريقة جديدة يمكن الجزم بأنها تجاري مسار اشتباك الاجتماع و السياسة الذي تبلور منذ نهاية الحرب الباردة عالميا. تميز هذا المسار عموما بانهيار القيم الكونية في السياسة و الفلسفة على حد سواء و تراجع الصراع الطبقي لصالح منطق الخصوصيات الثقافية و مطالبها السياسية و الاجتماعية. كان اليسار عموما هو الخاسر الأكبر في هذه المعادلة فخسر جمهوره وانتقل الكثيرون من كوادره إلى صفوف مجموعات عرقية أو ثقافية و ساد منطق التعدد الثقافي على منطق المواطنة و المساواة.
صاحب عنوان "الطوائف إن حَكَت" نفسه إبراهيم الأمين خرج من صفوف اليسار اللبناني إلى صفوف محبذي حزب الله وانتقل معه الكثيرون من شيعة اليسار اللبناني الذين شكلوا نواة الحزب الذي نعرفه اليوم. شكل هؤلاء جزء من حركة انتقال اكبر شهدت عودة الكثير من اليساريين إلى صفوف طوائفهم وان تفاوت مدى التزامهم بالتوجه السياسي العام لهذه الطوائف. تكمن المفارقة بان ما ارتضاه هؤلاء خيارا سياسيا لأنفسهم عابوه لدى الآخرين و اعتبروه ضربا من المذهبية و الانقسام. الخطأ الذي وقع فيه الكثيرون من يساريي الطوائف هو أن الانحراف عن الخط العلماني الصرف يسلبهم حق انتقاد الطائفية و ممارسيها، فهم قد أصبحوا جزا أساسيا من التركيبة الطائفية بمعناها الأوسع.
حاول البعض رغم ذلك الاعتراض على بعض نتائج الانتخابات و ما سبقها بوصفها شحنا مذهبيا و تكريسا للانقسام. ومن بدائع اللغة و التفكير على هذا النمط الحديث عن الطائفية بوصفها خلل نفسي مثل ما تعبر عبارة "محي الطائفية من النفوس" الذي يكثر استعمالها في لبنان. هذه سذاجة لا مكان لها في السياسة، فالسياسي أو المعلق ليس طبيبا نفسيا ليأخذ على عاتقه مسؤولية معالجة الشعب اللبناني من إمراضه. تعبر هذه النظرة عن ازدراء هؤلاء لجمهور السياسة في لبنان و عدم مخاطبته كجمهور يمكنه ممارسة خيارات سياسية واعية. جل ما يمكن لهذا الجمهور فعله هو الانتقاء بين الخيارات السياسية المطروحة عليه، وكلنا نعرف قلة المعروض وفقر تطلعات العارضين.
ما لا يفهمه الكثير من أصحاب اللغة و السياسة في لبنان إن الطائفية شيء و التعصب شيء أخر. يوجد التعصب حتى في أكثر المجتمعات علمانية لكن هذا لا علاقة له بالسياسة. الطائفية تعني تنظيما سياسيا-اجتماعيا يتركب على صورة المجموعات التي تشكل هذا المجتمع و يوفر لها وسيلة لتنظيم علاقاتها. بهذا المعنى فان معظم اللبنانيين و معظم ساستهم و معلقيهم هم من محبذي هذا النظام الطائفي الذي ارتضوه حكما و حاكما على أحوالهم. وبعد لا يمكن لبعضهم انتقاد البعض الأخر إن غالوا في التحمس لهذا النظام بالدرجة التي أنتجت التحاما كليا بين الطوائف و قياداتها في الانتخابات الأخيرة. هذه النهاية المنطقية لهذا النظام، و جل ما فعله اللبنانيون إنهم ساروا بهذا المطاف إلى مداه الأقصى. فقد الذين جاروا هذا النظام قدرة الاعتراض عليه لحظة قبولهم بيه و تخليهم عن العلمانية مسارا مخالفا و مغايرا لنهج الطائفية.
هذا سبب من أسباب تضعضع اليسار و العلمانية في لبنان اليوم لكنه ليس حكرا على اللبنانيين. يفوت الكثير من ديمقراطيي اليسار في لبنان إن النظام الطائفي الذين يشكونه هو وجه أخر للتعددية الثقافية التي يمتدحوها لدى المجتمعات الغربية، يتميز عنها فقط بترسخ جذوره السياسية و القانونية. هواة التعددية هؤلاء يخالون التعددية نفسها أمر جيدا و يغالون بامتداحها. لكن التعددية الثقافية تختلف كليا عن تعدد الآراء و الوجهات السياسية، فالأولى يمكن لها أن تنتج مجتمعا راكدا تنعدم فيه العلاقات بين هذه المجموعات أما تعدد الآراء و التعبير عنها يتيح للمجتمع إمكانية التغيير و التقدم و خروج الأفراد عن إرادة مجموعاتهم.
المنحى التي تتخذه الطائفية في لبنان اليوم هو محاكاة أفكار التعددية في الغرب و الاحتفال بالخصوصيات الثقافية لطوائف الاجتماع اللبناني و المغالاة بالدفاع عن مصالحها و الخوف من تهديدات وجودية لها تتراءى في مخيلة البعض كلما خرج التخاطب بين هذه الطوائف عن حدود التهذيب المعهود. لكن الحقيقة انه ليس لدى أية من الطوائف اللبنانية الكبرى اليوم مشروع هيمنة يشبه المشاريع السابقة الذي كان أبرزها المشروع الماروني. تبّدى هذا عموما بعد الانتخابات عندما عمد معظم الأطراف إلى خفض وتيرة التخاطب و المطالب وعادوا عموما إلى البحث عن صيغة لمشاركة الحكم بشروط ترضي جميع الإطراف. هذه حدود السياسة في الصيغة الجديدة لطائفية النظام اللبناني التي قد تتذبذب على وقع متغيرات دولية و إقليمية لكنها ستبقى ضمن هذا الإطار، فهذه حدود مخيلة الطوائف بحلتها الجديدة ما بعد الحداثية.
هل علينا أن نرتضي بهذا الواقع بوصفه تعبيرا عن إرادة الشعب اللبناني و خلاصة طموحاته ؟ هذا تفكير انهزامي قبوله يعني قبول سلطة المنطق الطائفي التي تبقى علته الأساسية تقييده لدينامكية المجتمع و فرص تقدمه كما رأينا و سنرى. بداية علينا أن نفقه أن الطائفية هي مشكلة سياسية لا نفسية و مقاومتها تكون بالسياسة و الأفكار الجديدة لا بعلم النفس. ثم علينا أن نعي أن القبول بمنطقها يعني التخلي عن موقع نحن بأشد الحاجة إليه هو موقع العلمانية بوصفها جزا من مشروع سياسي لا صفة شخصية مستحبة. عسى أن يكون مأزق النظام الطائفي عتبتنا إلى السياسة.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)