Towards a National Assembly to Protect Lebanon's Existence

Last Tuesday, I published an article in the newspaper "Al-Joumhouria" titled: "Christians in Lebanon: Political Concerns with Theological Roots." I received varied responses, most of which I was not unaware of. Those convinced of the formula of living together (incidentally from diverse sects) asked me to expand on the approach. Those no longer convinced by the experience of living together, mostly Christians, said, "We have paid the price in our existence and role." Their words expressed genuine concern, but their conclusion was misplaced. The threat to the existence and role of Christians did not come from Greater Lebanon nor from the diversity that existed in the Mandate-era Lebanon (for those who long for it). The threat to existence is no longer limited to Christians and stems from the failure to govern the state and manage diversity, a responsibility borne to varying degrees by all those who have ruled Lebanon, Muslims and Christians alike, over the past hundred years.

I have not overlooked accusations from Christians against Muslims, claiming they wanted to dissolve Lebanon and attach it to regional projects, nor accusations from Muslims against Christians that they monopolized governance and dominated the economy.

My conviction is that knowing who harmed coexistence more no longer helps. The danger today is to Lebanon's existence. Anyone who thinks their sect will benefit if Lebanon is annexed to Syria is mistaken, and anyone expecting gains from Lebanon's fragmentation is deluded. There will be no sectarian states over Lebanon's geography; either it remains a unified state or simply ceases to exist. Lebanon represents a need for its people only, not for others. The Lebanese shared life experience, through its success, serves as an inspiration for others in managing diversity. Living together is a difficult labor but it produces a great civilization. It does not mean assimilation but protecting diversity and freedom within one state.

Here, the discussion is no longer intellectual or historical but becomes a practical standard to confront the gravest threats to states with diverse societies, namely the terrorism of extremism, racism, and any project based on denying or eliminating the other.

In this sense, "political Chalcedonianism" with its symbolism appears as a civilizational presentation directed at all Levantine societies. It stands in direct opposition to the logic of extremists, whether those groups that use religion to justify crimes or states that use racial identity to justify crime and exclusion. It is the same deadly exclusivity based on subjugating the other rather than partnering with them.

In facing these two models, and looking at the present, I say: there is no salvation for a group outside the state, no viable state without full partnership among its groups, and no stability for states without mutual respect for sovereignty and a network of shared interests.

This vision does not deny particularities but rejects turning them into political or security boundaries. Particularity here is wealth, not an excuse for withdrawal. Shared living is a sovereign act, not just a slogan. Just as combating terrorism requires drying up its funding sources, confronting exclusion begins by drying up its intellectual roots: rejecting narratives of fear, dismantling the logic of "us and them," and establishing the concept of citizen not follower, partner not guardian.

Only through free discussion can we face the critical question: What is the state in a pluralistic society? How do we protect the unity of the state and the diversity of society? How do we prevent strong centralization from turning into domination, and positive diversity from turning into excessive differentiation that ends in fragmentation?

This is the balance formula needed to birth a new governance system by agreement, not imposition, based on non-negotiable principles:

* The state is the sole framework for shared life.

* No collective rights outside individual equality in citizenship.

* No security without justice, no justice without a state.

* Diversity is a source of stability, not a threat to it.

For a long time, we were ruled by power balances influenced by external rhythms, closer to crisis management.

They did not produce permanent solutions but temporary settlements with mutual guarantees between groups, leaving the state hanging on the cross of multiplying crises. Hence, Lebanese politics appears indecisive, neither in security, economy, nor in relations with the region or abroad.

Stalemate is deadly: either a project for an inclusive civil state that turns plurality into sovereign strength, or continued pursuit of fragile temporary balances where fear dominates and differences are managed as threats, not opportunities.

Repeating the discourse of coexistence is meaningless without turning it into a political decision. In this context, I recall a valuable discussion platform I participated in at the invitation of the Human Dialogue Center (Swiss HD Association) alongside representatives of Lebanese political parties. Its goal was for each party to lay its concerns on the table to map out a roadmap for implementing unexecuted constitutional reforms. I regret the political and media attack this platform faced, which was closer to shooting down a unifying project for the sake of a divisive one. Constitutional dialogue in Lebanon is not a luxury but a break in the silence surrounding the ongoing discussion of the political system established since the Taif Agreement. Any suppression of this discussion is unacceptable regardless of the excuse, emphasizing that merely opening it breaks the taboo surrounding the system’s structure, clarifies political forces’ positions and the concerns of groups and individuals instead of leaving them governed by speculation and mistrust.

Constitutional dialogue is neither exclusive nor forbidden, and it produces ideas that can transform into serious legislative debate in the 2026 Parliament if the will exists. What is required from dialogue is to open the door to political solutions after it was long closed in favor of the street, weapons, or silent collapse.

Isn't the preamble of the constitution an entry point to the unifying contract that decided Lebanon is the final homeland for all its children, whose state is based on respect for individual and public freedoms, values of justice and equality, and respect for diversity?

If the preamble turns from a suspended text into a binding reference, wouldn't it become an actual entry to overcome concerns by establishing a state that applies its constitution, political forces that respect this constitution, and institutions that protect everyone without discrimination?

Many have expressed to me the Christians' fear for their existence and role, but this fear does not stem from phobia of the other but from a harsh historical experience witnessed by Lebanese Christians since the last century, observing the emptying of Iraq, Syria, and especially Palestine of their Christian components due to wars, persecution, and migration. Today, fear for existence encompasses all Lebanese. Hence, concern centers on a fundamental question: Can Lebanon withstand in the coming years as a state outside the logic of the state of rights, citizenship, justice, and freedoms?

The answer: only this state dispels the fear of weapons by confining them to the hands of legitimacy. Only it protects against the concern of settlement as a direct demographic and political threat to Lebanon's balances. Only it guarantees actual partnership so Christians remain founding partners, not a "minority" needing guarantees. Only it addresses economic and social concerns caused by middle-class impoverishment and Lebanon’s depletion of its energies through expanded developmental decentralization.

The summary of these concerns is one: fear of the disappearance of the role and the loss of Lebanon as a space of freedom and plurality in a regional environment threatened by extremist unitarism and conflicts of interests.

Is Taif sufficient to address all these concerns? It is the starting point for protecting existence and actual partnership outside the equation of numbers. Taif is a necessary framework but, like any constitution, it needs updating starting with implementing its reform provisions as the only civil state contract accepted by all Lebanese.

Fear is legitimate and concerns are real, but they are not addressed by inventing guarantees above the state, but by making the state the guarantee for all. Then fear falls, and parity turns from a political constraint into an incentive for partnership.

This is the vision of the elder Houwayek, and this is the essence of the Vatican’s message to the Lebanese, especially Christians, summarized as: coexistence is an existential choice, not a temporary settlement.

Living together is a positive interactive choice; unity does not negate plurality, and plurality does not undermine unity. Isolation inside does not protect Christians, nor does external backing protect Muslims. The only solution: a neutral civil state where all are equal before the law, protected by the centrality of its strength and justice, and the decentralization of its administration and development. The more the danger seems overwhelming, the more the moment appears opportune.