Let’s Commit Suicide

Culture, Politics

By Farah K. Yachouhi

May 3, 2016

In the spirit of the upcoming municipal elections and as the date approaches, the tension heightens between those who seek change and those who claim they do. The truth is, first time voters are the ones who are under the most pressure. With our youth being the main catalyst for change, they are in fact standing before two cruel choices: Political Crime or Political Suicide. Yes, the pressure is on!

Municipal elections in Lebanon occur every six years. The last one was in 2010. Our general elections, that are supposed to take place every 4 years, last took place in 2009. This means that every young citizen aging 21 to 26 is voting for the first time this time around!

With that said, let’s explore the two options they have at hand. Inspired by the realist Machiavellian term criminal virtue¹, some scholars in political science, like Francis Fukuyama and Charles Tilly, agree that most nations are the product of original crime² or organized crime³. The two terms are quite different, but identical at the core. These notions mainly support endorsing crime for profit or power. How many of us can agree that most of the current prominent leaders are a product of such crimes?

However, Fukuyama also highlights that nation building comes from within which is where, metaphorically speaking, committing political suicide comes in. An ancient mythological legend best explains this phenomenon. The Phoenix, a magestic bird, in so many different cultures represents rebirth, resurrection and the rise of a new era! Only one of its kind can roam the living realm at a time. When it is time for it to die, it sets itself on fire with a clasp of its magnificent wings allowing a new Phoenix to be born from its ashes. Is it not time for the burdened Phoenix to burn and let a new, young, ambitious and rejuvenated one rise from its ashes?

What is your vote going to be for, more crime or a dignified suicide? Leave a comment below. All ideas are welcome on Iza Fakkarna.

If you like what you just read and want to read some more, scroll all the way down and choose any of the previously posted articles!

Sources:

1. The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

2. The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama

3. War Making and State Making as Organized Crime by Charles Tilly

Nation or Nationalism: Which Came First?

Culture, History, Politics

By Farah K. Yachoui

April 25, 2016

Pause for a moment and try to answer this question. Which do you think came first? Does a nation give birth to nationalism or the other way around? One of the reasons why Iza Fakkarna is born is to encourage you to question things and not take them as they are at the surface layer. Things rarely are what they seem to be. Dig deeper, and discuss your ideas.

It is said that it is the elites who define nationalism; thus, allowing them to build nationalistic communities where they guarantee the continuity and survival of their influence and power on the masses and subsequently on the nation! Others say that it is the nation, as an entity, that leads to the birth of nationalism. It can be quite tricky to decide which comes first. Their existence depends on one another just like the chicken and egg complex! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Let’s go back to the basic definition of a nation. It is a significantly large population that has common ancestry, culture, language and history concentrated within a vaguely defined geographical boundary. Seldom does a nation make it through history and maintains its existence without nationalism. The latter is a feeling of devotion and vigorous support for one’s nation. Now, it is easy to say that nationalism cannot exist without its prerequisite, the nation.

However, let us examine the broader sense of a nation. What is a nation? How did it come to exist? The concern for the security and survival of oneself is the root of this dilemma. Very early on in history, we realized that living within a group guaranteed higher chances of survival. This dates all the way back to the Old Stone Age. Later on, a shift from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural societies, allowed for the rise of elite groups who believed that the survival of the whole depended on their task of storing the surplus of the agricultural supply.

At the time, natural disasters risked destroying years of crop supply leading to famine and possibly extinction. These groups gradually became more powerful over the masses as they developed a system of writing to keep record of the goods they managed. They developed taxation, took on divine roles and influenced the beliefs of the masses. Soon after, obligatory military conscription was required to protect the vicinity from outside threats like other nomadic tribes. Thus, the first civilizations or nations were born!

How is it any different in the modern world? Why do we assume that the nation is the prerequisite to nationalism? In the modern world, nationalism is achieved by implementing a mass common schooling on national content, obligatory military conscription and tax duty. We simply modernized the ways of the ancients, nationalism is the precursor of the nation!

Thank you for reading guys. Don’t forget to leave a comment!