Autumn leaves... the promise and threat of the Arab spring

Bassem Hassan

                                          Photo Roberto Schmidt AFP/ImagesGetty

As the popular Arab revolts approach autumn, the tree of Arab dictators is shedding its leaves. One after the other they fall. Some fell when the tree was merely shaken, others after a strong wind and still others after a raging storm. The storm still rages, the tree is shaking violently and the remaining leaves will fall… yellow, crooked and dry.

Arab societies are vastly different from one another in terms of their social organization, institutions of state and history of independence and governance. Yet, they share the fact that they are governed by corrupt oligarchies often lead either by a family or a single brutal figure. As such it is perfectly understandable that the discussion over the future of post-revolutionary Arab nations centers upon the idea of democracy. Clearly, no Arab future is likely to be bright and hopeful without democracy. However, democracy is a vast and complex notion and today exists in almost as many forms as there are democratic states. The question therefore is what basic standards of democracy might we call for in the new Arab nations emerging from the settling dust of the liberation battles?

Perhaps a useful parameter against which to measure this notion is the path of democracy in modern Arab history. Today, one might speak of two democratic countries in the Arab world: Lebanon and Iraq. The former has a relatively long experience with its democratic system, while the latter has a rather new experience with its system. What the two countries share is a very troubled unstable history with their democracies. A logical assumption therefore is that the common elements of the two systems underlie the shared trouble they have with democracy. Those common elements are a system of power sharing based upon religious sects and heavy intervention in internal affairs by conflicting outside powers. Thus, the Arab revolutionaries in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and soon Syria would be well advised to avoid anything resembling the Lebanese or Iraqi “democracies”.

Arab people across the region deserve the freedom and democracy they have paid for with decades of oppression and poverty and months of bloodshed. They also deserve a democracy likely to sustain them in the long term. They deserve a democracy that will allow their societies to develop solid economies, modern educational systems, sustainable infrastructures and institutes of knowledge creation. The brave young Arabs who rose to defy the heritage of their defeated and defeatist fathers, but also in equal measure the dark prophecy and evil instruments of small but violent minority of religious extremists, deserve a future in which they are all equal in rights and duties regardless of age, gender, ethnic origin, spiritual conviction and life style. Those who paid with their bodies and risked their lives, and the memories of those who lost theirs, deserve a future in which Arab peoples stand in social solidarity within and between their countries, while respecting each other’s right to independence and self-determination.

All these gifts do not come cheap and they do not come easy. All these rights and privileges are not given, but rather created. All this promise held within the very nature and course that the Arab revolutions have decided to take, does not come merely through claiming democracy and holding elections. Lebanon and Iraq are a sadly non-shining example. For the Arab spring to someday shine a beautiful sunlight and for the Arab tree to finally bear the fruit of progress, it needs to be planted in the soil of secular, socialized democracy. Any other form is short-term recipe for regression to the dictatorship of tribalism and its favorite mechanism of governance: civil war!

Calculation Mistake

Dr Bassem Hassan

Picture this:

You are a 16 year-old high school student. It’s Friday morning, second period… Algebra. The teacher walks in and gives that pop quiz he’s been promising all week: a sheet of paper with a one-line question on it. You take one look at it and realize that you will solve this in 10 minutes tops. You know this. You’ve got it. You WILL ace this quiz!

Monday morning. You get the quiz back and to your horror, you got a failing grade! You cannot believe it. What went wrong? You were absolutely convinced that you did it correctly. You followed the tried and true method. Step by step, one equation after the other. There is NOTHING wrong here. You go to the teacher and you ask what you did wrong and he points you to the second line where you made this small, but significant, calculation mistake which rendered everything that came after it a series of errors, culminating in the wrong answer.

That is exactly what the Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad has done with his decision to violently repress the pro-democracy protests in his country. He has made a small, but significant, calculation mistake and all what will follow from it will yield all the wrong answers. The Syrian regime was in an enviable position relative to its counterparts in other Arab countries. The vast majority of the protesters on the streets of Syrian cities were not calling for the president to step down, nor even for the regime to change. Even some of the major opposition intellectuals in Syria and abroad clearly stated they were willing to work with the young president to institute much needed reforms, as long as he was willing to engage in genuine and deep reforms, and initiate the process quickly. Syrians were asking to live in a more free, transparent and responsive political system. They were asking for a clamp down on corruption and for their basic economic needs to be met. They just wanted to live in dignity and some measure of political freedom. When seen from this perspective the response of the regime is grossly exaggerated and unnecessarily violent. Such a bloody, brutal, response to such relatively modest demands - by comparison to Egypt for instance - can only mean that the regime is excessively paranoid. It also might suggest that major elements within the regime feel directly threatened by any demand for greater freedom, or perhaps more importantly, clamp down on corruption.

Thus, Bashar Al-Assad chose oppression over dialogue and in that he has made his calculation mistake. He used all the right equations from the dictatorship handbook. He is applying them with all the tried and true methods. Yet, once your initial calculation is in error, the answer will be wrong. The calculation error lies in the fact that the Syrian president is neglecting two major issues. First, this is a genuine popular revolt, not an insurrection by militants. Had he responded positively and openly, he would have won the support of his people. As it stands, even if the security forces manage to oppress the uprising for now, the regime, as well as the president himself, have lost any remaining legitimacy in the eyes of the Syrian people. This means that the rest of his rule will have to rely even more heavily on oppressive measures, making him even more beholden to the old guard and security chiefs within his regime, and making another uprising that much more likely. Second, by oppressing the popular civilian uprising, he in fact strengthens, not weakens, the more fundamentalist elements within Syria and forces the moderates to go underground. Thus, even if there were to be no more popular uprisings, the regime risks dealing with an armed rebellion or even civil war in the not so distant future.

Just like the student in our metaphor, Bashar Al-Assad had a choice and had the time to carefully consider his options and revise his calculations before handing in his decision. Alas, by choosing violent oppression over dialogue, security over democracy, and oligarchy over social justice, he has made a calculation mistake… one that will ensure that whatever answer he arrives at will be the wrong one.

From the rise of Arab freedom to the shine of Arab democracy

Dr Bassem Hassan

Two things are crystal clear. First, we are living through a truly historical and transformative moment in the Arab world today: a moment that will certainly shift the historical path of the region and consequently the world. After all, ever since a few thousand horsemen armed with a new ideology and the determination to spread it emerged from the Arabian desert to create one the largest, most enlightened and longest lasting empires the world has ever known, whatever happens in the Arab world has had deep repercussions on what happens across the globe. Second, these popular Arab revolutions are black swan events. No one predicted them and no one knows what they will lead to. Anyone who makes any prediction and ends being right, will have been right by sheer luck and pure coincidence, and not thanks to any piercing insight.

It is difficult to curb the excitement and the “I never thought I’d live to see this day” feeling when watching the Arab people, particularly Arab youth, rise against their brutal, and sometimes even insane, dictators and oppressive regimes with such fearless determination and exemplary courage. Many of us had dreamt of these days so much and with such futility that we learned to stop dreaming. Ten years ago, a handful of Arab youth, blinded by maniacal religious extremism into thinking that liberation comes through mass murder, caused most Arabs untold shame and despair. For ten years we Arabs have had to suffer the humiliation of being branded as terrorists by the rest of the world and as cowards by our dictators. And just when it seemed like all hope was lost, Mohammed Bouazizi the young poor and humiliated fruit vendor – literally – burned down the fear barrier. Shed of their fear, the Tunisian people opened the floodgates that are now sweeping all Arab dictatorships into the dustbin of history, where they belong. However, now that it seems like the fall of all Arab authoritarian regimes is a question of when, not if, it is perhaps it is time to start asking “what next?” Not predicting, just asking!

A revolution is a singular event; almost a singularity. It usually transpires in a relatively short amount of time and causes a seismic shift in the direction of a nation or society. In fact, when a revolution fails to occur swiftly, it usually turns into a civil war and/or protracted chaos, as had happened in Lebanon decades ago and may be happening in Libya today. In contrast, what happens after the revolution in terms of nation building and social transformation can be a slow, arduous and difficult process. Recall for example the years of tyranny, wars and upheaval that followed the French revolution, before secular democracy finally took hold. Arab societies today are not in need of reform; they are in need of rebuilding. Each and every Arab country today has had it’s borders created by it’s former colonial rulers and it’s political and economic system built and mismanaged by brutal dictators and their corrupt regimes. Illiteracy and poverty are rampant across the Arab world. The basic rights of women and children are considered a joke across almost all Arab societies and authoritarian, submissive, superficial and extremely irrational forms of religion (both Muslim and Christian) are the norm, not the exception. This is by no means a unique property of the Arab world. The secular democratic Europe that emerged from under the burden of the unholy alliance between absolute monarchy and a Mafiosi church was no different, and this should give us hope.

The new systems that will emerge in the Arab world will need not only to be responsive to the temporary aspirations of their people for increased political freedoms, but much more importantly, they will need to be responsive to their long terms needs. For there to be a new Arab renaissance the emerging systems will have to set egalitarian sustainable socio-economic development, universal education, women’s rights and the de-politicization of religion as their priorities. They will also need to bury another awful legacy of the departed dictatorships: the fear and suspicion of the other Arab! By way of simple example, today, I as a Lebanese, need a visa to enter Arab countries where any westerner can enter freely. The emergence of people power in Arab countries should result in the opening of the Arab world to itself. Just like the revolution spread across the barbed wire borders from the small remote Tunisian town of Sidi Bouziz through the now legendary Tahrir Square to the streets of historical Syrian cities, so must the development of the new Arab world. For we inhabitants of this beautiful and bountiful region are many peoples who share not only a common history, culture and language but also a common destiny. We have been very good at sharing our autocracies, suspicions and social and religious fundamentalism for over half a century. Sharing our freedoms, hopes, and cultural and scientific achievements should be far less of a challenge… and a far more pleasant exercise!

The Lebanese Vicious Cycle

Bassem Hassan and Joseph El-Khoury

On the 6th anniversary of the March 14th 2005 demonstration that led to the formation of the eponymous movement, a range of speakers reminded the crowds of the apparent threat that Hezbollah poses to the Lebanese entity. It is clear that a well organized, grassroots supported, religiously based quasi-fascist militia is incompatible with the concept of a secular democratic state, to which all claim to aspire. The trouble is that, far from being merely an Iranian import, Hezbollah is just another natural product of the Lebanese system to which these speakers belong. Hezbollah today is no different from what the Christian Lebanese Forces and the Druze PSP were during the civil war (i.e. well organized, grassroots supported, religiously based quasi-fascist militias). In fact the Shiaa Islamist movement today is the "highest" form of self-sufficient structure that all sects aspire to. Hariri’s Future Movement itself clumsily and rather unsuccessfully attempted to emulate that model between 2006 and that fateful day in May 2008. For decades now and the sectarian system engenders and nurtures these structures because effectively it its message to the people is: "look, you belong to sect X, so go agree on a leader among your own people, then our leaders will talk to your leaders and sort it out"!

Ironically, is that the propagandists in the March 14 camp are playing precisely into Hizbollah's hands with their new ad campaign and their rolled up sleeves attitude. This could be for one of three reasons:

1) They only care about reinforcing their own support base, which has been slowly eroding. So, they want to preach to the converted whom they fear may have lost faith or simply got tired and scared.

2) They are an incompetent bunch who don't understand the current prevailing political psychology of the Shia community.

3) They are actively seeking a confrontation as part of a yet unclear strategy.

Obviously a combination of the above is not to be ruled out.

The bottom line is, as we have repeated in the past, the current confrontation is part of a positive feedback loop that the sects use to essentially regenerate the system that serves them as political entities in the first place. The one thing that may be a game changer this time around is that the balance of power (and we don't just mean military) has shifted so far in one direction that dramatic events may be on the horizon. At this stage all what Hezbollah seems to be successfully capable of engineering is Shia political autonomy. The ‘La Ayre’ counter-campaign, which politely translates as “Couldn’t give a toss” typically exemplifies that state of mind.

The questions now are: How far is the day when the temptation of a full blown take-over is simply too great to resist, and what would be the consequences?

The Right of Return

By Dr Bassem Hassan

No, no, I am not referring to my right to return to writing articles for Arab Democracy. Speaking of which, I do want to apologize to my fans (all 3 of you, myself included!) for my prolonged absence. It was caused by shoulder surgery and too much work.

OK, back to the main topic. The right of return I am talking about is THE right of return. Yes, that one! The one enshrined in international law and UN security council resolutions. The right of expelled or escaped refugees to return to their homeland, hometowns, homes! The very right that Israel and the so-called “international community” insist on denying the Palestinian people. The right that even those who claim to represent the Palestinian people- and their backers in the hollow and defeated Arab officialdom- are willing to sign away from a fistful of dollars. The same dollars they get paid selling Israel cement to build its racist wall. The same dollars they count, with watering mouths, as they sell the Israeli army food supplies while closing the borders that would allow a besieged and bombed Palestinian population to get necessary food and medical supplies. The same dollars they then so generously announce as a donation to butchered Palestinian children having just made them selling Israel natural gas.

And so what of this right return? Well, the right of Palestinian refugees is perhaps the single most peculiar issue in the entire Palestinian question. It is used by friend and foe alike to exploit the Palestinian cause and people. Israel, of course, denies this right. It denies it not only because of its demographic implications, but for a much more fundamental reason. Accepting the right of Palestinian refugees is essentially an admission of its crime; of what Daniel Rubenstein, writing for Ha’aretz, called “the original sin”. Interestingly, Israel itself uses the concept of the right of return to populate its synthetic entity. Is not the whole idea of Israel based on “the right of the Jewish diaspora to return to the “promised land”? So, basically, a person who happens to be born into the Jewish faith in Brooklyn, New York has the “right of return” to Palestine, whereas the a person born and raised in Yafa who still holds on to her original house key, does not have the right to return to her place of birth? How does that work exactly? The Arab regimes, all Arab regimes “democratic Lebanon” included, use the right of return to deny Palestinian refugees basic human and civil rights. How do they do this? Well, you see, dear reader, the ridiculous “argument” goes as follows:
If Palestinians were to be treated as equal human beings with the right to jobs and education and health care, they might become too relaxed and happy. Too satisfied. Yes, human dignity has that downside, you see! When they become happy they risk forgetting about Palestine and their right to return to it! So, in order to make sure that Palestinian children never forget their right to return to Palestine and never lose that desire, let us lock them up in shanty towns, subject them to miserable living standards, force their children to go to pathetic makeshift schools and play in sewage water. Its for their own good really!

Yet the sadest element of the tragedy of Palestinian children is that they have been let down, not only by the “international community” and Arab regimes and societies, but by their own leadership. At least they still have their right of return to dream of, on those nights when the American made F-16’s decide to give them a nights sleep.

It’s the economy… stupid!

By Bassem Hassan

Picture: AFP / Getty

First and foremost, I should thank/apologize to Bill Clinton*- or more appropriately his brilliant campaign chief James Carville- for stealing their 1992 US presidential campaign slogan and using it as a title for my article.
Having said this, I should clarify that this is not an article about the former or even current American presidential campaign.
Finally, I should tell you what this article is actually about. It is about everyone’s favorite topic: Hizbullah! And make no mistake, it is everyone’s favorite topic. If you don’t believe me, just check the number of comments any article that mentions the word Hizbullah receives on this site. In fact, if you want your article read by a lot of people, just plant the word Hizbullah at several key points throughout your article and enjoy the response and the popularity it brings with it! But I digress.
What, you may ask, does Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign slogan have to do with the controversial Lebanese movement? Good question.
A lot in fact. A major question that surrounds Hizbullah is why is it so popular? Almost every analysis you read- generally by us self-styled intellectuals of every ideological color, shape or form- concentrates on one (and occasionally both) of two main arguments.

The first is what I shall call the argument from theology. This tends to be the argument of those who are either right of center and know it, or who are right of center but haven’t realized it yet (for example the Decoratic Left Movement, as Dr. Samah Idriss so eloquently calls it). The argument goes something like this: Hizbullah binds its followers by a bond of theological allegiance to the concept of “Wilayat al Faqih” which- as those intellectuals put it- dictates obedience to the Theologian-King (e.g. the Supreme Leader in Iran), the self-claimed representative of the 12th Shia Imam (i.e. Al-Mahdi) whose return the majority of Shia are thought to eagerly await. Please note that it is rather likely that the Supreme Leader himself is not terribly eager for Al-Mahdi to return, since that would mean the end of his own supremacy… but again, I digress. Add this formidable spiritual bond to the traditional “minoritarian” thinking of the Lebanese secterian mind et Voila: the magic potion that endears Hizbullah to its Shia base. Problem solved. Liberal thinker go home happy!Ridiculous! Cries the leftist intellectual- at least of the sort still stuck in 1973 or thereabouts and glued to different chairs of various communist party committees. Stuff and nonsense! They counter with what I shall refer to as the argument from dignity. Hizbullah is supported by its base because of its formidable resistance to the Zionist enemy and its military victories over occupation. These victories have restored dignity to the nation and offered hope that the eternal armed struggle shall defeat the enemy and liberate the holy land (in which case it would of course cease to be eternal). Viva la Revolucion! This hope for a dignified future free of occupation and oppression by the Zionist gang and its imperial masters is what guarantees the allegiance of the masses to what is- au fond- a working class liberation movement. And that’s that. Time for leftist intellectual to resume paperwork on behalf of the disenfranchised.
So, this is the gist of what you usually read- or more horrifyingly- watch on Arabic sattelite channels during the course of “political talk shows”. Brrrrrrrrrrr!
You almost never hear these analysts ask themselves the simple question of why people actually support anyone. And that’s where Bill Clinton- or rather his brilliant slogan- comes in. Yes, people want to live in dignity and freedom. But that usually starts by having a place to live in and meal to eat. It starts by not having to choose between dinner and sending your kids to school. It starts by having paved roads to facilitate economic and social life. It starts by having access to water and electricity to wash your clothes and keep clean. It starts by earning your living through your own labour.
In other words, it starts with the sort of dignity that the Lebanese political system has not only failed to offer to the people of the south since independence, but in fact purposefully denied them. That is the sort of dignity that Hizbullah has been systematically offering people in the south of Lebanon and Beirut’s southern suburbs since the early nineties. And that is exactly why the old Hizbullah of the early eighties- despite “Wilayat Al-Faqih” and despite heroic resistance to occupation- was almost universally loathed and feared, even among the Shia. They learned their lesson very quickly, and with ruthless efficiency: the route to people’s hearts and minds passes through their pockets. And once you have their hearts and minds, you become invincible.
There is probably no better demonstration of this fact than the aftermath of the 33-day war whose anniversary we are celebrating this week. Witness what happened to the reconstruction efforts run by the Lebanese government (i.e. dismal failure, highway robbery, and disgraceful secterian hate-mongering) and contrast that with what Hizbullah succeeded in doing (temporary apartments, a higher rate of restoration, small scale corruption and, by-and-large, even handedness). All that with significantly less money one must note.

So there-in lies their secret. Hizbullah delivers. Not only on its political and military promises, but more importantly, more fundamentally, on the promise that “its people” will live in dignity…of the sort that actually counts when you wake up every morning.

Notes to the article:
* William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946) served as the forty-second President of the United States from 1993 to 2001.

A propos, here’s a joke for the Arabic speakers among you: Bill Clinton wu shrab mayytoh!

حزيران أقسى الشهور

بقلم د. باسم حسن

Picture: Courtesy of www.badil.org

"دوائر حول الدوائر، دعني أفسر لك الحادثة
حلمت، كما كنت تحلم، أن حزيران أقسى الشهور
وأن الكلام الذي يتكرر فينا لكي نتبعه
هو الكارثة".
محمود درويش*

البارحة حين خلدت إلى النوم كان انتحاري مخدر بالحقد الديني يفجر نفسه بمجموعة من المدنيين في بغداد، وكان سياسيو لبنان ومواطنوه المخدرون بسموم الطائفية يتناقشون حول ما إذا كانت الطاقة الكهربائية تعمل بشكل أفضل إذا كان وزيرها شيعيًا أم سنيًا أم مارونيًا.
البارحة حين خلدت إلى النوم كانت قوات الأمن في دمشق والقاهرة تعتقل كتّابًا وأساتذة جامعيين بتهمة التحريض على الإخلال بالأمن، وكان ضباط كبار في الجزائر وطرابلس الغرب والرباط يقبضون رشاوى مشاريع النفط والغاز.
البارحة حين وضعت رأسي على الوسادة وأغمضت عينيّ، كان رأس مواطن أخر، معصوب العينين، يُقطع في الرياض. البارحة حين خلدت إلى النوم بعد يوم مثقل بالتفكير، كان المواطن العربي من المحيط إلى الخليج مهمومًا إمّا بأبواب مستقبله الموصدة، أو بخبز وحليب أطفاله أو بعدم التفكير، وغالبًا بالثلاثة معًا.
ولماذا يفكر وقد فسّر له شيخه أو قسه كل شيء؟ لماذا يفكر وقد حُلَّت له كل المسائل منذ ألفي سنة؟

منذ 5 حزيران 1967 والتفكير ممنوع.

هزمنا.

ليس عسكريًا فقط. هزمنا بالعقل.

هزمنا لأننا لم نكن حاضرين. وماذا كان رد فعلنا على الهزيمة؟ أن نتقوقع أكثر. أن نستسلم أكثر. وأسوأ الاستسلام لم يكن لأعدائنا، بل لأنظمتنا وخرافاتنا.

لكنّ الهزيمة ليست قدرًا، والنوم ليس موتًا، وزعماؤنا ليسوا آلهة، ورجال الدين ليسوا أنبياء. نتأمل، نحلم، لأنه يجب أن يكون هناك أمل ويجب أن يكون هناك حلم نعمل على تحقيقه.
نعمل!

5 حزيران 1967 ليس نهاية التاريخ. وفلسطين ليست إسرائيل والقدس لن تبقى محتلة إلى الأبد. السجن والغربة ليسا الخيار المحتوم، والعقل... العقل لا بد أن يمحو الخرافة.

* اسميك نرجسة حول قلبي من مجموعة "هي أغنية هي أغنية".

The Lebanese Delusion

By Bassem Hassan

Picture: www.criticaltimes.com.au, edited by Arabdemocracy:
In the original version it said: "Explain again your definition of Terrorism?..."

I must admit to a disturbing mix of amusement and resignation at reading the articles appearing recently on this site relating to the latest episode of the permanent crisis that is Lebanon. On the one hand, I find myself amused by the grand-standing, over-poetic and hyper dramatized style- to the point of comedy- of the open letters to this, that or the other leader. On the other hand, I am resigned- no depressed- at the completely off-target content of these said letters and articles.
In some sense the dramatized style and the off-target content are a perfect fit. Not only do they go well together stylistically, they also make sense conceptually. This is because both style and content are symptoms of serious intellectual disorder called- or should be called- the Lebanese Delusion.
The Lebanese Delusion –LD for short- takes many forms. In its most mundane, and relatively harmless, form it manifests itself as a belief that “we the Lebanese” are somehow special, different, superior at the individual level. A slightly more dangerous sub-type of the disorder takes the form of cultural superiority of each and every one of the Lebanese “communities”- a euphemism for religious sects of course- over the others, and consequently over the rest of humanity. However, the most virulent variant of the LD virus is that of pseudo-intellectual recasting of the backwards tribal war that underlies Lebanese politics into some ridiculous fairy tale of ideological struggle.
Ladies and Gentlemen: forgive me if I burst your bubble. The conflict in Lebanon is not an ideological struggle between two different visions for the state, or for Lebanon’s place in the region and the world. It is- as it has always been- a conflict over economic and political power between shifting secterian alliances. No more, no less. The first priority for each political organization in Lebanon is to secure supremacy, or as much of it as possible, within its own sect. The second priority is to secure as great a share as possible of the spoils of the ruins of the state, and the corruption of the socio-economic condition of the citizen. This, the various organizations within each sect do by shifting political alliances with organizations within other sects.
Hard to believe? Disappointing perhaps? Just when you thought that some bigger, more important conceptual issue was at stake. Liberal democracy vs. Islamic fundamentalism. Wouldn’t that be cute for all you 14 Marchers? Or, resistance and national sovereignty vs. subjugation to the American project, for the 8 Marchers among you? But please don’t take my word for it. Go to Lebanon and talk to the people on the street. Ask them what they think is going on. Watch Future TV, Al-Manar or LBC. Listen to the religious leaderships of the various mafias- sorry sects. Attend local functions- weddings, funerals, you name it- in the small towns and villages. Do that, and you will experience the quasi-fascist rationalization for the hate we have for one another first hand.
No, there is nothing grand, ideological or honorable about the Lebanese political scene. It is time for the lot of you to wake up and smell the gun powder. It may cure you from LD. But if that doesn’t do it, hopefully AD will.

Brussels, 20 May 2008.

لكم لبنانكم ولي ... غربتي

د. باسم حسن
Lebanese immigrants gathered to celebrate a Christening in 1904.
Photo courtesy of Mary Costa, Pretoria, South Africa, 1904 (www.mari.org)

أخي الموطن (اللبناني طبعًا)

مرحبا ويعطيك العافية. اسمح لي First of all ، إنو هنّيك على استئناف الحرب الأهليّة بعد توقّف قسري دام حوالي ال 20 سنة. أرجو أن تتقبل اعتذار جميع القوى المحليّة والإقليميّة والدوليّة عن هذا الانقطاع غير المقصود عن الحرب يلّي كانت كثير cool وسمحت لعدد هائل من الجيل الماضي بممارسة بطولات وتضحيات جمّة عمّدت التحالفات بدمك، يا أخي المواطن، وشكّلت أرضيّة خصبة لإعادة رسم خريطة "العيش المشترك"، حفظه الله وأدامه لنا جميعًا pour toujours

اليوم يقف لبنان على شفير الهاوية. والوقوف على شفير الهاوية أحلى مما تتصوّر يا صديقي المواطن. ذلك أن شفير الهاوية "مهوي" النسيم فيه عليل والمنظر خلاب. بالإضافة إلى وقوفه على شفير الهاوية، يعيش لبنان لحظة مصيريّة. Please note ، إنو لبنان يعيش دائمًا وأبدًا لحظات مصيريّة. بتعبير آخر، كل لحظات لبنان مصيريّة، والحمد لله. شو بدّك أحلى من هيك يا حضرة المواطن؟ أنت عضو فعّال في مجتمع كل لحظة من زمنه مصيريّة. فهنيئًا لك هذه الجمهوريّة. وبما أن لبنان يقف على شفير الهاوية ويعيش لحظة مصيريّة، كان لا بد أن تنبثق عن هذه ال combination حرب جديدة. دعني أفسّر. You see أخي المواطن، الحرب التي توقّفت عام 1995 توقّفت بسبب الإرهاق ولأن جيلاً ما كان يحارب قد تعب من عبثيتها. لم تتوقّف الحرب لأن أسبابها حلّت أو لأنّ فريقًا هزم فريقًا آخر. توقّفت لأن أدواتها، وليس أسبابها، استُنزفت. أما اليوم فهناك جيل جديد، يقوده زعماء قدامى، جاهز لبذل الغالي والرّخيص لإعلاء كلمة الحقّ ونصرة الوطن على جميع المتآمرين عليه من قوى إقليميّة وعملائهم المحلّيين، بغض النظر طبعًا عن كون هذا الجيل الجديد لا يفهم كوعه من بوعه (أصلاً ما هو البوع؟)

يعرف الجيل الجديد من اللبنانيين الأشاوس أنه يستحق، كما جيل آبائه، حربه الخاصّة لكي يثبت للبابا والماما أنه هو أيضًا بطل خارق يستطيع أن يحرق الأخضر، إضافةً إلى اليابس. ولكن الأخضر أهمّ لأن مين ماكان يستطيع أن يحرق اليابس. ولكن الأخضر لا يستطيع حرقه إلا الرّجال الحقيقيّين. وبما أن لبنان أخضر وبما أننا نحن اللبنانيّون "أسد غاب متى ساورتنا الفتن" توجّب على هذا الجيل الجديد أن يحرق لبنان لكي يقوم طائر الفينيق من بين الرماد.

ولكن لنعد إلى الجدّ. الواقع والحقيقة، بلا مواربة وكذب، هي أننا كلبنانيّين نكره بعضنا البعض. انتبه! أخي المواطن، نحن نحبّ لبنان بل نعشقه، ولكننا نكره بعضنا. بالإضافة إلى هذا الكره العتيق، لسنا متّفقين على هويّة واحدة ولا على رؤية واحدة للأسس الّتي يجب أن يقوم عليها وطننا. لذلك، توجّب علينا أن نقتل بعضنا بعضًا. ولا بأس في ذلك. It’s OK إنما أرجو أن تحسموها هذه المرة. يعني رجاءً فلتستمرّ الحرب إلى أن ينتصر فريق منكم على الآخر بشكل نهائيّ وقاطع. خلّصونا من قصّة لا غالب ولا مغلوب. إن لم يكن من حرق الأخضر بد، فمن العار ألا تكملوا المشوار حتى النّهاية. هذا لبنانكم، لبنان التخلّف والحقد والتّعصّب الأعمى. لبنان الطائفيّة والعنصريّة والغرور الفارغ. لبنان الستة آلاف سنة من اللاّشيء يذكر. عيب أن تحرقوه "نصّ- نصّ"! دمّروه كلّيًا ثمّ أعيدوا بناءَه وفق مقاييس الرّابح منكم. لكم لبنانكم، فلا تستهتروا به.

من زمان غابر كتب جبران خليل جبران "لكم لبنانكم ولي لبناني". ووصف لبنانه- الحلم. تذكّروا جميعًا أن جبران مات في الغربة. سبحان الصّدف!

Brussels

10/05/08

The Simpler Things in Life

By Bassem Hassan

Some things in life are quite simple. Their simplicity can range from the self-evident to the easily explainable, but the beauty of these simple things is that their simplicity does not take anything away from their sophistication or even complexity. Let’s take the address of this site, www.arabdemocracy.com, as an example.

The parts (www) and (.com) immediately tell you that I am pointing you to a space on the ‘world wide web’ and that this space or is part of some sort of a non-profit public interest type concept. Simple! Now, the word democracy is also fairly simple. Of course it refers to a very complex concept, but that does not take away from its simplicity. We would all immediately understand that we are talking about a specific political system of government. Furthermore, none of us would really have much trouble recognizing, for instance, that most European countries are democracies and that most Arab countries are not. Simple! Finally, that leaves the word Arab. Arab, which despite referring- like any other identity label- to a very complex set of cultural, historical, geographical and political realities, nonetheless is an easily recognizable term. We can all agree that an Arab is someone who hails from one of the twenty one countries that make the Arab world, who speaks Arabic and who considers themselves a product of a largely Arabic-speaking cultural heritage. We would all realize that this is a blanket operating definition and that there are numerous exceptions to it and nuances within it. Yet, we would not have difficulty reaching consensus around it, such that we can agree to call someone an Arab. Quite simple really.

Being a Lebanese leftist is an equally simple thing! Yes, yes…I know. There are many lefts and various forms of each and…and…and…but its still simple. Here’s the deal: if you are a leftist-or at least if you became a leftist anytime after the late 1800’s- then there are three basic principles you adhere to and they define you as a leftist. You don’t just wake up one day and decide you’re a leftist because you wore a red T-shirt with Che’s picture on it. You also don’t get to deviate fundamentally from these principles and retain your exclusive rights to being a Lebanese, or Arab, leftist. You would display more moral courage to simply do the democratic thing and accept that you are not a leftist anymore!! So what are these three principles? Well, they’re simple really.

First, a Lebanese leftist, like any other leftist, is a historical materialist. This means she believes that history is driven by forces defined chiefly- but not exclusively- by the interaction of the different socio-economic classes of society, and the logic of the distribution of economic power among them. In this context, a Leftist has very few illusions about what she means when she speaks about equality and social justice. Second, a Lebanese leftist is a staunch secularist and a sworn enemy of sectarianism. She does not accept that a sectarian political structure is a necessary evil because “that’s how we Lebanese are” or because “we first have to convert all Lebanese to secularism before we dismantle the sectarian institutions”. This is a deceptive and pathetic excuse. A leftist would generally be intelligent enough to realize that, in fact, it works precisely the other way round! You dismantle the institutions that rob humans of their rights as individual citizens, in order to break the vicious cycle that binds them, like slaves, to the sectarian chieftains. As such a Lebanese leftist knows that she has no business being in an alliance of sectarian factions, regardless of which day in the month of March they happen to prefer! Third, a leftist, in a Lebanese context, has very little confusion about her position on the Arab-Israeli conflict. She has a very clear idea of the history of Israeli aggression against her country and the countries of fellow Arabs. Yet her opposition to Israel is deeper than that still. She understands that this struggle is not simply about one army occupying the country of another. It is also not about the conflict of two ethnic groups or an eternal enmity between two mythologies. Rather, she knows fully well that Israel is an apartheid state and an entity built upon a mixture of self-styled ethnic and religious exclusionary racism, and by a continuing process of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

The bottom line is this: if you decide that a liberal free market economy is “cool”; that secularism is just one option in a multiple choice sectarian question; that a brutal oligarchy you- rightly- bitterly oppose is a greater threat than an enemy whose openly advertised goal is the obliteration of your identity and the destruction of your possible future, then you are not a leftist. Period.

Obviously, you are free to make this choice. Who knows, you might even be right… but you’re certainly not left.

Simple…really!

The Fools of April (and 11 other months)

By Bassem Hassan

Picture: http://beachblogger.net

Seriously, now, who doesn’t love a good lie? Especially if it is one of those lies that you tell to get people all worked up about something only to burst out laughing when they realize the joke’s on them. In fact we homo sapiens sapiens (yes, that’s our official name) love lies so much that we dedicate a specific day in the year- this very day, April 1st- to lie and laugh about it. And you know what…good for us! As long as it’s all in good fun, why not?

As long as it’s for fun…that’s the key. There are some lies you just don’t tell, even on April 1st. You don’t tell a father, for instance, that his child has just been taken to hospital after being hit by a car; or a woman that you just saw her partner kissing someone else (unless you really did of course!). You get the point; you don’t tell lies that can have profound effects on people’s lives. The vast majority of humans abide by this rule. It is strange then to see that when it is no longer a personal issue the very same decent people seem to have no qualms telling the types of lies that can ruin the lives entire generations. I refer of course to the profound lies we are told on a daily basis by a whole herd of neo-liberal Arab ‘intellectuals’, whose numbers- and the numbers of media outlets they speak through- seem to be rising exponentially by the second. Of course what is terribly funny-sad about this (and “the worst of evils is what makes you laugh”, as the beautifully elegant Arabic saying goes), is that the vast majority of these people used to be leftists until that well dried up and was replaced by oil-well media outlets.

Here’s a small sample of neo-liberal “April Fools” I personally experienced. The individuals perpetrating this nonsense shall remain anonymous, of course.

1- The American project in the Middle East is to support democracy in the region: Obviously, these pundits must be referring to the havens of democracy such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Morocco, Tunisia… the list of US supported Arab democracies seems endless!

2- If Palestinians (or Lebanese) stop “attacking” Israel, it will stop “retaliating”: here our neo-liberal geniuses are referring to the brutal occupation of Israeli land by the nuclearly armed Palestinian State and the constant bombings of the civilian population, including 20 day-old infants, by the heavily armed Palestinian army and its fearsome air force. Truly…what are we thinking?!

3- Continued resistance undermines nation building: quoth the raven of the Vichy government during the Nazi occupation of France! Need I say more?

4- The problem is not sectarianism, the problem is the lack of democracy: this is of course why our neo-liberal friends oppose free and fair elections when they bring radical Islamists to power. What the neo-liberal does not seem to understand is that he cannot have it both ways. Yes, sectarianism is exactly the problem and it is exactly what the neoconservative fascist thugs running America’s military and foreign policy are encouraging in Iraq, Lebanon and the Gulf.

And now my top three favorites. Drum roll please…

5- At least Israel is a democracy: oh, yes, of course, because people vote there. Never mind that Israel is (not was, is), by its very definition, an apartheid state based on a racist ideology, founded on the transformation of a mythological religious narrative into a pseudo-national identity. But, wait a second, people vote there! They also vote in Iran, Morocco and Pakistan, you know, but we don’t call those democracies…do we?

6- We should accept any peace we are offered because it allows us to build our economic prosperity: why didn’t I think of that one?! I mean look at the prosperity that peace brought to Egypt resulting in a huge increase in per capita income, decreased infant mortality rates and the almost complete abolition of unemployment and foreign debt…or not!

7- Attracting foreign capital investment will trickle down to the rest of the population: Are you not in awe of the limitless genius of the neo-liberal brain? Trickle-down, supply-side, economics reinven…I mean photocopied (again!). Obviously since these policies failed miserably in Europe and the United States in the 80’s, they must- by definition really- succeed in the far more advanced, much less corrupt Arab world.

By now, you are wondering “what is it about the neo-liberal mind that allows it to be so insightful?” Of course, we silly leftists are incapable of fathoming the depth of the neo-liberal intellect. However, as some of us can actually read- and occasionally do- we have been able to gather clues to share with you. First, neo-liberals de-contextualize the problem. Second, they substitute analysis and evidence with example and anecdote. The combination of these two tricks is what brings out the most powerful neo-liberal voodoo: the irresistibly delicious, magnetically inviting, GENERALIZATION. You see, it is their capacity to generalize ahistoric, nonscientific nonsense that allows them to come up with theories like the “clash of civilizations”. Islam vs. the West they call it. Religion vs. Geography: good one! Or the “inherent irrationality of the Arab/Eastern mind” as if Al-Razi, Ibn Arabi, Ibn Al Haytham, Jaber Bin Hayyan, Al Khawarizmy and Ibn Sina, or the hundreds of modern Arab scientists, from Ahmed Zuweil on down, who practice their craft all around the world, hailed from Norway, Poland, Wales and South Dakota. Or better yet, their favorite baby “Globalization” as if it were a new thing. They forget that Capital has always been globalized and has always attempted to extend its global reach. From Marx and Engels to Teddy Roosevelt, thinkers and politicians across the spectrum have written about this fact more than a hundred years ago. Then again, I forget that the neo-liberal is the master of reinventing the squeaky wheel, because he does not bother reading the manual. Oh, the list of their “theories” is inexhaustible, but enough is enough.

So, the next time you come across neo-liberal venom spewing in your face, remember the old Arabic saying “the wise is not bitten by the same snake twice”. Or better yet, just pretend its April 1st and have a good laugh.

The Marchian Invasion

By Bassem Hassan

“hajamo…hajamo…hajamo…”
“meen?”
“el barghash…”
From an old Lebanese radio add for an anti-mosquito spray.

To say that Lebanon today is divided, almost broken, between two camps is to most people the very definition of stating the obvious. But the beauty of the obvious- at least in Lebanon- is that it...well…isn’t!

Two camps, to be sure. Two sides with completely different ideological frameworks, political agendas and societal concepts. Two opposing forces with radically different ideas about the citizen, the state and the economy. Two poles pulling Lebanon in two different directions towards two alternative futures. It is vital that we not belittle or brush aside the differences between the two sides. For doing so implies that we look at the essence of the crisis that is Lebanon from a fundamentally flawed perspective, before we have even begun the process of critical analysis.

For one camp- and let us creatively call it Camp 1- what Lebanon needs today is a political identity stripped of the mythologies of the past and of the invented stories about about its geography, history and the sad interplay between the two. Camp 1 believes that this is the time for nation building through a process of true development; one that places the education, health, employment and well being of the citizen as the absolute top priority of the State. This is a camp that considers the citizen, from the newborn child to the aging adult as the building block of the socio-economic dynamic and, as such, desires to build a socio-economic framework- called the Lebanese Republic- whose cohesive vision can be best stated as: how do we as individual equal citizens work to ensure the well being of ourselves and- crucially- one another at the same time? It follows therefore that Camp 1defines Lebanon’s place in the world fundamentally in function of the answer to this question. Needless to say, Camp 1 is composed of people who have an unwavering belief in prosperity through equality all spheres of life.

Camp 2 is basically the mirror image of Camp 1. Its concept or, more accurately, concepts, of Lebanon are deeply rooted in fanatical mythologies, nonsensical historical narratives and a form of communitarian power structure which obliterates the freewill and social responsibility of the citizen. It is a camp for whom, indeed, the ‘citizen’ does not truly exit. It does not understand ideas like development and equality. It is, by definition, anti-progressive because its only interest is to re-create itself ad nauseum!

If you happen to be a Lebanese reading this article, then you have almost certainly guessed by now who Camp 1 and Camp 2 are: Camp 1 is yours whichever side of “Marchian” divide you happen to be on. And you know what? You’ve gotten it completely…wrong! For regardless of what sort of “Marchian” you happen to be, you, my sadly deluded friend, belong to Camp 2. Fortunately for you, however, you are in the vast majority…and you will win.

Alas, we progressive, leftist, secularist, enlightened, liberated and egalitarian earthlings will be defeated by the Marchian invasion. Our last hope is to be resurrected someday after you Marchians have finished destroying each other.

Istanbul, Saturday 23 February, 2008.

Lebanon's Political System: The Mule

البغل
بقلم: د. باسم حسن

Picture: http://www.ferrum.edu/applit/bibs/JustusPedMule.jpg

This is the first article by Dr Bassem Hassan published on Arabdemocracy. Dr Hassan will hopefully become a regular contributor and commentator on Arabdemocracy. Dr Bassem Hassan is Lebanese and holds a PhD in Molecular Genetics from the University of Ohio,USA He is currently based at the University of Leuven in Belgium where he works as a Professor and Researcher. His interests are in brain growth and related diseases. He has written social commentaries and articles for various Arabic publications in the past

The Editorial Team

النظام السياسي في لبنان هو نوع من البغل الفكري والتنظيمي. فهو تماماً كالبغل، حيوان هجين بين اجتماع قبلي طائفي متجذّر بعمق وقادر على ما يبدو على تحمل أعباء كثيرة تماماً كالحمار، وبين محاولة لممارسة الديمقراطية والتعددية الفكرية الطارئة حديثاً نسبياً تماماً كالحصان. وأوجه الشبه بين البغل البيولوجي والبغل السياسي، أي النظام اللبناني، لا تتوقف عند التهجين بل تتعداها إلى مسألتين أخريين، الأولى هي أنّ بغلنا السياسي قادر على حمل الأثقال في الطرقات الوعرة مثل أبيه الحمار. والمسألة الثانية هي أنه عاقر.

البغل حيوان مفيد طبعاً. إذا كان الهدف هو حمل الأثقال الكبيرة على طرقات وعرة وغير معبدة، فالبغل هو المطلوب حتماً. وكذالك إن كان هدف الاجتماع والسياسة اللبنانيين هو البقاء ضمن نمط الإقطاع السياسي والثقافي، والتنقل ببطء بالغ بين المواقع الاجتماعية والسياسية والاقتصادية المختلفة ونحن ننوء بأحمال التخلف العلمي والحقد الطائفي والاستسلام للقدريات والماورائيات، فبغل الطائفية السياسية هو وسيلتنا الأنجع، وهو المبتغى والمنال. أمّا إذا، لا سمح الله تعالى، كان هدفنا التنقل السريع لمسافات بعيدة وعبر طرقات متشابكة لكن معبدة بالتنمية العلمية والمواطنة والعلمانية الديمقراطية.

فعلينا بفرس عربية أصيلة. ولكي نقود فرساً تأخذنا إلى مصاف الدول والمجتمعات المتطورة فكرياً وثقافياً وسياسياً وإجتماعياً وإقتصادياً، علينا أولاً أن نأخذ دروساً بالفروسية! دروس مستوحاة من كل ما هو منفتح وتقدمي وعقلاني في تراثنا الغني من جهة، ومن كل ما هو متقدم ومنهجي وحديث في تجارب الأمم والمجتمعات الأخرى، من جهة أخرى. الإشكالية الأولى للبغل السياسي إذاً هي أنه وسيلة ممتازة للنقل القريب بين مواقع قريبة جغرافياً ولكن متباعدة سياسياً وثقافياً، وفي الوقت ذاته، وتحديداً بسبب خواصه، يشكل مانعاً أمام تسريع وتيرة التواصل وتقصير وقت الوصول. وعليه، فالبغل ليس فقط غير ملائم لتطور نمط الاجتماع، بل هو تحديداَ عائق أمامه
أما وجه الشّبه الثاني بين البغل البيولوجي والبغل السياسي، هي أنّ الاثنين غير قابلين للتطوّر. وللتوضيح، نبدأ بالبيولوجيا. إن أشكال الحياة قاطبةً، بما في ذلك الإنسان، تنشأ وترتقي من وإلى أشكال أخرى. والشرط الأساس لهذا التطور والارتقاء هو التوالد لأن التوالد يسمح بحدوث تغيّرات جينية يبقى منها المفيد ويختفي الضار. ومن دون القدرة على التوالد يستحيل تطوّر أشكال الحياة ويستحيل طبعاً نشوء أشكال جديدة. وكون البغل حيوان عاقر لا يتوالد، يعني تعريفاً أنّه لا يتطوّر. فالبغل الذي يصنع اليوم والبغل الذي سيصنع بعد عشرة آلاف سنة هو هو، البغل عينه! وهكذا، يبقى على القرية أن تتكيف وذنب البغل، لأن ذنب البغل (وسرعته وقوته وإلخ...) لن يتكيف مع أوضاع القرية!
إن قانون النشوء والارتقاء هذا، وإن كان بيولوجي المنشأ، فهو قانون عام يمكن تطبيقه على الاجتماع البشري أيضاً. النظام السياسي الطائفي في لبنان، والثقافة التي تنتجه وينتجها في علاقة جدليّة، أقرب ما تكون إلى سفاح القربى، هو بغل بهذا المعنى أيضاً: نظام هجين تتطلب إعادة إنتاجه نكاحاً جديداً، من فترة إلى أخرى، بين مواقع الإقطاع السياسي اللبناني. أما أهل القرية اللبنانية فليس عليهم إلا التهليل للبغل الجديد وإعادة التكيف مع طول ذنبه. هذه إذن إشكالية البغل السياسي الثانية: حيوان غير قابل للتطور.
متى فهمنا هاتين الإشكاليتين ونظرنا إلى مدى تماثل الطائفية السياسية مع البغل، حق لنا أن نسأل أي نوع من الناس هم وأي منطق هو هذا الذي يقبل بغلاً كنمط لإجتماعه وثقافته. وربّ مشكك يسأل "إذا كان الإقطاع السياسي هو من يهجن البغل، فلماذا نلوم ابن القرية المسكين الذي فرض البغل عليه؟" بتعبير آخر، إذا كان المشهد السياسي في لبنان اليوم مثلاً محصوراً بالتنافس بين تكتل طائفي وآخر طائفي أيضاً، كيف يمكن للمواطن أن يختار موقعاً لا طائفياً ما دام هذا الموقع غير موجود؟ سؤال منطقي... ولكن فقط بمنطق البغال. ما يغيب اليوم عن الفكر السياسي وحتى الثقافي في لبنان ليس فقط "الخيار الثالث" اللاطائفي، بل الغائب هو أخطر من ذلك بكثير. غياب الخيار الثالث ليس إلا عارضاً من عوارض غياب الفهم الحقيقي لمعنى الموقف السياسي في المنطق الديمقراطي. الموقف السياسي موقف فردي وخيار أحادي حر. والموقف السياسي ليس هو هو الإيديولوجيا. قد يكون الموقف السياسي قائماً على الإيديولوجيا وهذا عادة شيء صحي، لكنه ليس صنوها. الموقف السياسي هو اتخاذ قرار حول مسألة آنية. قد يكون القرار اختياراً لواحدة من حالتين لكن يمكنه أن يكون أيضاً مغايراً تماماً. في مجتمع ديمقراطي تعددي حديث تتكون المواقف السياسية للافراد والمجموعات والأحزاب خلال علاقة جدلية بين الواقع الآني والإيديولوجيا. وبناءً عليه تنتج السياسة في مجتمعات كهذه مجموعات ضغط سياسي بهدف حل مسألة معينة. وحين ينتج الحل تتفكك هذه المجموعات لتحل محلها أخريات متضارسة في تكوينها. المشهد السياسي في الديمقراطيات الحديثة هو مشهد ديناميكي تستطيع ضمنه مجموعات من المواطنين فرض مصالحها على الأحزاب السياسية وليس العكس كما هو الحال في مجتمعنا.
العائق الأساسي أمام ولادة مشهد سياسي حيوي عندنا هو التماهي القائم في العقل السياسي اللبناني بين الموقف السياسي والهوية الطائفية بحيث يصعب على المواطن اللبناني أن يتخذ موقفاً سياسياً لا يتناسب مع موقف المرجعية الطائفية التي تحتكر تمثيله. ويصعب على العقل اللبناني الطائفي أن يستوعب أنه من الممكن مثلا أن يؤيد المواطن حزب الله في مقاومته لإسرائيل وأن يعارضه في إيديولجيته الدينية والطائفية، في آن معاً. فالتّماهي بين الهويّة الطائفية والموقف السياسي يمنع العقل اللبناني من اتخاذ مواقف مختلفة من الإيديولوجية نفسها طبقاً لرؤيته الفردية لمصالحه كمواطن. هكذا ينتظر اللبناني أن يعلب موقفه السياسي وأن يباع له بالجملة، ربما كي لا يتعب بالتفكير وتحمل المسؤولية السياسية.

العقل السياسي اللبناني جاهزٌ لحمل الأثقال الفكرية الملقاة عليه لكنه ليس جاهزاً للاختيار بينها... تماماً كالبغل!