Listen to the article
The upheaval triggered by “Nahel’s death” in France raises the question of public space beyond the sociology of immigration and its relationship to religious pluralism. Can the concept of public space be seen as a neutral one free of religious references? Or is it separate and inclusively accommodates all religious beliefs of the society that lives and exercises its legitimate “right to the city,” or its right to urban life as raised by Henri Lefebvre? The issue of public space lies at the heart of the Lebanese crisis, at a time when some wish to “federalize” the country, not for the sake of “bonding” or improving harmony and reinforcing political unity, but rather in order to fragment it and divide public space according to religious identity.
Some saw in the French uprisings and subsequent acts of vandalism a violent claim to the “right to the city,” a concept established by sociologist Henri Lefebvre in 1972. Others perceived the tensions as a reminder of the ancient religious wars that ravaged Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. This time around, the two religions that are standing against each other are not two rival branches of the same religion but rather two different concepts of the relationship between religion and politics.
On the one hand, there is French secularism in public space, which is entirely neutral with regards to religion. On the other hand, there is a non-secular public space, one that belongs to Muslim immigrants and is resistant to any form of secularization.
However, we must keep in mind that Islam is a civic religion, somewhat reminiscent of the ancient “religio romana.” Can one expect a civic religion, which does not identify with the concepts of kleros (clergy) and laos (community of believers), to embrace a vision of utter neutrality in the public space and the State?
The tensions that arise in modern, diverse, and pluralistic societies are one of the greatest challenges facing our democracies. In this particular context, Lebanon offers a prime example of the destructive consequences that emanate from such a confrontation in the public sphere. Therefore, it is not a matter of Muslims versus Christians, but rather a clash between a secular modern camp versus a traditional one where the Law is competing with customs rooted in various religious traditions. While the Lebanese State is constitutionally secular, the truth is that the Lebanese public is far from being religiously neutral, as it is endorsed by the 1905 French law regarding the separation of State and church.
In France, the notion of neutrality in public space implies the complete absence of any religious symbolism. The Republic ensures a direct and immediate relationship between the citizen and the State. Any intermediary link or indirect relationship jeopardizes the citizens’ privilege and their “right to the city.” Therefore, any religious symbol displayed in public space challenges loyalty to the State. Monuments and religious practices, historically present for centuries within the national fabric, have been amalgamated and are no longer perceived as “foreign.” However, this is not the case with the symbols belonging to recent minorities, which at times incite intense animosity.
The American perspective on these issues is totally the opposite. In the US, the notion of ethnicity values cultural or religious intermediaries to the extent that non-affiliation to a core community can be deemed suspicious. Ultimately, one can be perceived as a true and good American citizen only if he or she “is part of one or multiple intermediary communities” (A. Zambiras).
In Lebanon, things are even more distinct. One can be considered Lebanese only if they belong to one of the 18 historical religious communities, whose customary laws govern all matters related to personal status. As such, how can anyone envision the notion of a “neutral” Lebanese public space similar to the French model when it cannot even be qualified as “indifferent” like the American model?
Amidst the ongoing Lebanese crisis, the matter of public space is being overshadowed by advocates of so-called federalist theories. What exactly do they wish to federalize? A country whose territory covers 10,452 square kilometers? Or groups with sectarian identities? The champions of federalism seem to be less concerned with uniting and improving overall harmony than with dividing public space into sectarian territories. If this is what their concept is built on, then it shouldn’t be qualified as a federation or a confederation, such as the Swiss model they strive to emulate. Their idea looks more like a system of identity-based ghettos where the arbitrary rule of tribal and clan dictatorships would undoubtedly prevail.
