Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 12:24 PM

Four years after a flurry of predictions about the "Lebanonization" of Iraq, they may be coming true. "Lebanonization" was a derogatory term, a hint at imminent civil war, political deadlock, Iran's hand in local militias and on many domestic levers. The columns and commentary on Iraq's "Lebanonization" issued a collective "uh oh," warning the state would fall apart like Lebanon did from 1975-1991.
What moved the term through officialdom was a perception that Iran and Syria were playing Iraq the way they played Lebanon in 1980s: perpetuating a status quo of chaos, then profiting from the melee. The Sadrists were like Hezbollah-in-waiting, tied to Tehran and using force to stymie Iraq's government, if they couldn't control it outright.
"What prompted me to use the term was the external dynamic … and it has still has some validity," said Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who has served as the top U.S. diplomat in both Iraq and Lebanon. He concedes that at present, in Iraq as in Lebanon, Iran has a virtual veto - influence enough to block any major decision that crosses its interests.
"Iran can't call the shots in Iraq. They can't make things happen, but they can screw things up. And they play a long game … they're waiting for us to be gone to make life harder for Iraqis."
Today the "Lebanonization" of Iraq is a different story, in which the parallels are mostly political. In Iraq's March election and its tussled aftermath -- there's still no government in place and likely won't be one until after Ramadan -- analysts see a repeat of Lebanon's 2009 parliamentary poll. In both cases a "pro-U.S." leader edges out the Iran-backed alliance, but it's a watered-down win. The country triangulates the interests of its three main blocs (Iraq: Shiite, Sunni, Kurd; Lebanon: Sunni, Shiite, Christian) through a long negotiation (this week talks in Baghdad broke down). Then a government theoretically comes together, balancing power among its political actors, whose voters cluster around their ethnic or religious base.
"The comparison holds. Today, Iraq has a Lebanon-style government: tribes with guns and a state that's not able to provide what a state should provide, like basic security," said Paul Salem from the Carnegie Endowment's Beirut office. In the vacuum, violent groups from al Qaeda in Iraq to Salafist movements in Northern Lebanon undo law and order.
Analyst Louay Bahry calls Iraq and Lebanon "junior democracies" at work, successful in at least roughly projecting the majority and generally protecting the minority. Others describe their system as a consensus democracy -- applied with some success in Europe, but made difficult by an Arab political culture.
"In the consensus system you cannot win everything and you cannot lose anything. This becomes difficult because compromise in Arab culture is not acceptable -- it's seen as a shame or a weakness," said Fuad Hussain, chief of staff to President Massoud Barzani of Iraqi Kurdistan.
"When someone is in power he is not willing to share power. When someone is in the opposition he doesn't want to share power; he wants everything."
The answer, he and others say, is greater federalism in Iraq. A strong central authority in either country would be too rigid, more likely to topple into civil war.
"If you look at Arab countries there are two phases: dictatorship, which is still the case in some places, or a zero-sum struggle between the tribes, which we've seen in Lebanon," said Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a visiting fellow at Chatham House.
The problem, he says, is that consensus democracy is an oxymoron: Consensus is the rule of all; democracy is the rule of the majority. "So you get paralysis, which has governed Lebanon, until one of the tribes to grow strong enough to dominate the others," he said.
There are other downsides to the consensus system, like the risk of freezing identity politics, with the country locked into thinking and ruling by sect. Lebanon is an extreme case, where each sect has a certain number of seats in government, guaranteed by law and unshakable by the changing will or demography of the voters. Iraq, which has mindfully avoided such a setup, could still succeed in evolving toward a secular civic model. But that is some ways away.
"Identity politics remains very important in Iraq, especially in the time of national elections.… Iraqis will stick with their communitarian groups," said Michael Knights at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Part of that, he said, has been engineered externally.
"Iran has quite successfully managed to prevent this last election in 2010 from breaking out of the sectarian mode. If Iran and its proxies hadn't struck up the de-Baathification issue just before the election it would have gone more smoothly."
Kenneth Pollack, a former NSA and CIA official now with the Brookings Institution, points to two pillars of independent Iraqi politics: a strong national identity and enough force to push back on Iran's will. The massive oil revenues coming online would also help, strengthening state authority and its patronage networks.
"There is a consensus in Iraq that they don't want something like a Hezbollah out there, able to block the powers of the state," he said.
"To the vast majority of Iraqis, Lebanon is only a model in terms of what they shouldn't do. The leadership is very, very cautious about becoming more like Lebanon. They don't want to move down that path."
That makes this moment the real test of Iraq's "Lebanonization" -- can Baghdad form a stable and successful government any better than Beirut? Would that government hold together and act from a unified national interest? It's a test with dramatic outcomes, for Iraq and for democracy in the Middle East.
"Iraq can bicker for months without falling into civil war … that's noteworthy," said Paul Salem, the Lebanese analyst with the Carnegie Endowment.
"And Iraq is harder to dominate externally, so if they get their act together they'd stand a better chance than we do."
Lara Setrakian is based in Dubai, where she reports on Iran and Arab affairs for ABC News. She blogs for ABC's MidEast Memo and tweets at @laraabcnews.
AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, ARAB WORLD, MIDDLE EAST, DEMOCRACY, IRAQ, LEBANON, POLITICS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
Clear context to the problems of the Middle East
The comments below show two things. One, why Israel is not responsible for the mess that passes for normalcy in the Middle East. Second, why despite all the complaints about Israel instringance, and demands for recognition and acceptance are more than just fluff. This essentially highlights why there won't be peace in the ME, and it isn't because Israel isn't willing to compromise, make "grand gestures" or withdraw from the settlements in the West Bank. What you have below, is the dark flip-side to all the romantic views of Arab and tribal cultures.
"In the consensus system you cannot win everything and you cannot lose anything. This becomes difficult because compromise in Arab culture is not acceptable -- it's seen as a shame or a weakness," said Fuad Hussain, chief of staff to President Massoud Barzani of Iraqi Kurdistan.
.
"When someone is in power he is not willing to share power. When someone is in the opposition he doesn't want to share power; he wants everything."
.
.
"If you look at Arab countries there are two phases: dictatorship, which is still the case in some places, or a zero-sum struggle between the tribes, which we've seen in Lebanon," said Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a visiting fellow at Chatham House.
.
The problem, he says, is that consensus democracy is an oxymoron: Consensus is the rule of all; democracy is the rule of the majority. "So you get paralysis, which has governed Lebanon, until one of the tribes to grow strong enough to dominate the others," he said.
I tried reading the 'comments below' but there were none. So I did a hit line of coke. Still no comments. Then I went all rednecky and did some meth. That worked. I saw the 'comments below' and now I believe in everything you wrote.
Someone wrote about a Middle Eastern country didn't include Israel, so it must be included! Only to say it shouldn't.
So I then put a kilo of hash in my grill to warm up dinner.
This helped me realize that in both on Lebanon and Iraq, Iran was the sole foreign influence. Israel did not invade Lebanon. America did not invade Iraq. Minor points that a few heroin shots quickly took care of.
Thank you for this post.
I'm now off to find some nice Hawaii gold. That helps me remember just how dumb Arabs are. Unlike we smartlike folk in the U.S. that wouldn't let a bunch of idiots push us into a war that was illegal and put us in massive debt.
Gotta run. I think my still is gonna blow.
LOL@Israel is willing to compromise
Oh yeah Israel was never involved in the invasion of Lebanon that exacerbated the situation, Israel doesn't have a complex spy network in Lebanon trying to destabilize the country as we have seen from the many arrests of Israeli spies, Israel didn't bomb and kill thousands of civilians in Lebanon in 2006. The funniest part is when he says Israel is willing to compromise and make grand gestures guess those grand gestures are stealing more pal land in the WB, saying they won't continue the temporary building freeze in the illegal construction on pal land and of course they will compromise by saying Jerusalem will never be divided ahhh gotta love those peaceful Israelis lol
Bush and Cheney are still waiting for the Thank You from the Iraqis for the destruction of their country.
Maybe Israel is also responsible for
placing Druze, Shiite, Sunni, and Christian communities all together in one country and forcing them to live together? Get a clue, from the time Lebanon was created artificially by the French, it was an ethnic powder keg waiting to go off. The blame Israel or the US game just shows how ignorant you are of history.
The Lebanese are not reaching any consensus
Syria and Hezbollah has "taken care of" any dissenters, such as journalists and politicians who stray too far (this has been going on for decades). The ethnic groups shift allegiances nearly weekly. Most of the christians have been driven out of Lebanon by Muslim violence. Iran has put al Quds revolutionary guards commanders as heads of Hizbollah to tighten the stranglehold going on there of the country.
The only "consensus" being made, or unity, is due to the force of arms by hizbollah and its iranian and syrian backers.
The greatest tragedy in the Middle East is that we have turned our natural ally into our worst enemy. The Iranian revolution that radicalize that country may be blamed on many factors including our diplomatic blunders.It is obvious we were aware of Iran's potential as a kingmaker in the Mid East but now we sit on opposite sides of a divide that cannot be bridged. War is obviously the only option we both now have and we will be killing our near kin the Shiite Iranian.
The Shiite Iranian differ from the Sunni Arabs in much the same way an English Protestant differ from an English Catholic, it is both an ethnic and religious different . The Iranian Shiite are more amiable to democratic government than the Sunni Arabs. A Shiite led Iraq and Lebanon would naturally be more inclined to democracy but we have sown the seeds of hostility and must now reap the consequence.

The Middle East Channel offers unique analysis and insights on this diverse and vital region of more than 400 million.
Read More
(6)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE