 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 30 March - 5 April 2000 Issue No. 475 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 30 March - 5 April 2000 Issue No. 475
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Special Focus Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Learning lessons from Lebanon
By Baheieddin Hassan *In a precedent unique for the Arab world, and probably the Islamic world as well, Lebanese Prime Minister Salim Al-Hoss refused to sign a judiciary decree ordering the death sentence for two convicted criminals because of his strong opposition to the death penalty. "Only God can grant life and take it away," he said.
Al-Hoss's stance gave a major moral boost to human rights advocates in the Arab world who have been calling for an end to the death penalty. In remaining true to his convictions, Al-Hoss refused to give in to the forms of coercion surrounding human rights issues in the Arab world. Religion is perhaps the most formidable source of pressure, which is why Al-Hoss did not embroil himself in human interpretations of religious scripture, but rather responded from the depth of his faith. His response is difficult to counter on religious grounds and ultimately conforms to the principles upon which human rights advocates appeal for the abolition of the death penalty.
The second form of coercion emanates from the notion of "priorities", which holds that commitment to the universality of human rights principles does not conflict with, and indeed necessitates, the derivation of priorities in applying them. These priorities must vary from one country to the next depending upon specific circumstances. While this notion is sound in principle, it frequently lends itself to the tendency to ignore certain rights. Among the issues that have met this fate in the Arab world are religious freedoms, women's rights and the death penalty.
In a country like Lebanon, arguments against eliminating the death penalty on the basis of "priorities" are even more tragically contorted. What, some might ask, is the exceptional value of the lives of two individuals condemned for murder in a country whose citizens Israel has slaughtered systematically for the past 20 years? Are the lives of these two criminals more valuable than the lives of the victims of Qana and other massacres -- lives the government of Lebanon was unable to safeguard? Why should Lebanon suddenly preoccupy itself with the lives of two convicted murderers?
The kind of pressure that can be brought to bear on Lebanon in the name of religion, Arab affiliations or the Arab-Israeli conflict, to name a few, seems too great for any country to tolerate. But history tells us that Lebanon conforms to standards higher than one might expect. It refuses to subject its ambitions to the demands of geography, population and the difficulties of day-to-day life, no matter how harsh, while other Arab nations relinquish grand ambitions and content themselves with a far smaller role than their demographic, geographical and cultural circumstances permit.
Other nations should contemplate the lessons tiny Lebanon is teaching us every day. They would do well to enroll in a course entitled: "How a small, multi-denominational, politically and ideologically diverse country reconstructs itself from the ruins of a brutal civil war, in the crucible of daily resistance to occupation and within the limits set by the Syrian red lines, without sacrificing its unique political and religious plurality." A small, war-torn and beleaguered mosaic has managed somehow to maintain the highest level of civil liberties in the Arab world. It has kept alive a vibrant fabric of civil society organisations and political parties and sustained a strong record of free and fair public elections and the peaceful rotation of power. Lebanon is the only Arab country that does not have presidents or kings for life -- or from one coup to the next. It is also the only Arab country that forced Israel to evacuate its territory without first having signed an agreement. Could there be a connection between the principles on which Lebanon is based and this result? Finally, Lebanon is the only Arab country left at the Arab-Israeli negotiating table.
With the exception of Morocco, Lebanon also offers the only model of a true prime minister, not a puppet whose strings are manipulated by a king or president. Al-Hoss refused to sign next to the Lebanese president on the death penalty execution order. He publicly defended this position, affirming at the same time that Lebanon is perhaps the only Arab country that does not lack healthy autonomous political institutions. By refusing to sign the execution orders, Al-Hoss stopped the implementation of the death penalty, in spite of the fact that the president of the republic and the minister of justice had signed them.
The lessons Lebanon has to offer seem boundless. President Lahoud did not try to outmanoeuvre or even get rid of his prime minister. Since it was unconstitutional for the deputy prime minister to sign the orders on behalf of the prime minister, the president honored his prime minister's decision, and reaffirmed respect for the law.
Many commentators portray Al-Hoss's refusal to sign as a constitutional crisis. I see it as quite the opposite. More significantly, it has placed the issue of the death penalty on the Arab agenda, especially since there are only three ways around the "crisis." The only alternatives Lebanon has now are to amend the law and abolish the death penalty, call for Hoss's resignation on the grounds that his position contravenes Lebanese law, or take the immediate, if temporary, pragmatic course of reducing the sentence. Any of these will only give added momentum to the appeal to abolish the death penalty.
* The writer is head of the Cairo Centre for Human Rights Studies.
