Lebanon is not a Democratic country!

Democracy Dr.PamelaChrabiehAccording to the quotaproject.org, Lebanon has one of the lowest political representation rates for women on a global scale, and especially in decision making positions and high ranking political positions. 3.1% of women in the Lebanese Parliament… Can anyone dare saying that Lebanon is a democratic country, when a large part of its population – 56% – is ‘missing’ of its social-political diversity management?!!

Would you like to know what are the ‘democratic’ or ‘close to be democratic’ countries? Refer to the list below and you would definitely be surprised – with Rwanda at the top of the list: 56.3% !!!

Democracy is literally, rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek dēmokratiā, which was coined from dēmos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”). A contemporary democrat could reasonably argue that Athens, because it excluded so many adults from the dēmos, was not really a democracy—even though the term democracy was invented and first applied in Athens.

Why should “the people” rule? Is democracy really superior to any other form of government? Although a full exploration of this issue is beyond the scope of this article, history—particularly 20th-century history— demonstrates that democracy uniquely possesses a number of features that most people, whatever their basic political beliefs, would consider desirable:

“(1) democracy helps to prevent rule by cruel and vicious autocrats;

(2) modern representative democracies do not fight wars with one another;

(3) countries with democratic governments tend to be more prosperous than countries with nondemocratic governments;

(4) democracy tends to foster human development—as measured by health, education, personal income, and other indicators—more fully than other forms of government do.

(5) democracy helps people to protect their fundamental interests;

(6) democracy guarantees its citizens fundamental rights that nondemocratic systems do not, and cannot, grant;

(7) democracy ensures its citizens a broader range of personal freedoms than other forms of government do.

(8) only democracy provides people with a maximum opportunity to live under laws of their own choosing;

(9) only democracy provides people with a maximum opportunity to take moral responsibility for their choices and decisions about government policies;

(10) only in a democracy can there be a relatively high level of political equality”. (www.britannica.com)

These advantages notwithstanding, there have been critics of democracy since ancient times. Perhaps the most enduring of their charges is that most people are incapable of participating in government in a meaningful or competent way because they lack the necessary knowledge, intelligence, wisdom, experience, or character. Still, when many Lebanese men – particularly Lebanese political and religious “experts” – and unfortunately many women, vehemently and openly affirm that “women lack the necessary attributes to become political leaders”, I wouldn’t describe the ruling culture, mentality and system in Lebanon as democratic, but surely, a Phallocracy!

I often hear “This is not a good time for Lebanese to talk about gender issues”, “There are more important issues to tackle”, “Women… Again? Why don’t you just stick to raising your children and taking care of your husbands?”…

If Lebanese want to build a democratic country, they cannot dismiss women’s full participation in decision-making. The vision for women’s political participation in empowerment-lite is entirely consistent with its counterpart, democracy-lite. The bold move taken by Women in Front association by inviting political parties in the country to increase the participation of women’s political representation ahead of the forthcoming parliamentary and government elections should indeed be commended as a step in the right direction. Politicians have to remember that gone are the days when women are only given the role of clapping for their usually male political leaders, instead of empowering them to take leadership roles in their political parties, including encouraging them to fully contest elections.

Opening up the debate on women’s political participation calls for us to question the 30% quota, even if asked to be temporarily implemented. Why settle for less when we can ask for more, in fact, for equality? Why not ask for 56%?

I do not agree with the quota systems. Why? One major question is whether quotas are able to go beyond descriptive or numerical representation to afford women real substantive representation in politics or real influence over decision-making processes. It is argued that, in some countries, the introduction of quotas, especially in the form of reserved or appointed seats, has not led to real empowerment of women. Rather, since women lack an independent electoral or organizational base, reserved seats have typically benefited the dominant party and have served to reinforce patronage networks and to strengthen allegiance to political leaders. In addition, reserved seats can create an ‘easy’ avenue for the election of women and can take the responsibility off the parties to address gender concerns and to nominate women as electoral candidates.

“Equal representation of women can result from incremental change or from fast-tracking. The relatively high rate of representation of women in Scandinavia has come about through incremental change – it has taken 60 years to achieve over 30 percent representation. In contrast, some African countries have achieved a high rate of representation of women in a short time, notably Mozambique, Rwanda and South Africa. This has occurred as a consequence of the introduction of quotas and women’s mobilization. Yet quotas remain highly controversial in many countries” (Refer to Drude Dahlerup’s work, Professor of Political Science at Stockholm University, Sweden).

I know for a fact that increasing women’s participation and representation in political life cannot be the only solution to the numerous problems we are facing as women and citizens in Lebanon.  We have to ask new questions about what is needed to democratize our country. We have to begin a process of questioning whether demanding greater representation of women within flawed and dysfunctional political orders is what will do the trick.  We need to initiate public debates and applied researches on what kind of Diversity Management we would like to have. We need to address political, economic, social, cultural and religious constraints within both formal and informal public and private spheres. Making political institutions more responsive and accountable should be our first priority, along with getting more women into politics. That is simply a first step to address a basic inequity, in order to amplify the influence of advocates for justice and equality within the political arena. 

Rwanda
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas for the Upper House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
45 of 80 56.3%
Sweden
(List PR)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
157 of 349 45%
Senegal
(Parallel)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
64 of 150 42.7%
South Africa
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
169 of 400 42.3%
Nicaragua
(List PR)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
37 of 92 40.2%
Iceland
(List PR)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
25 of 63 39.7%
Norway
(List PR)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
67 of 169 39.6%
Mozambique
(List PR)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
98 of 250 39.2%
Denmark
(List PR)
70 of 179 39.1%
Netherlands
(List PR)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
58 of 150 38.7%
Costa Rica
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
22 of 57 38.6%
East Timor
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
25 of 65 38.5%
Belgium
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas for the Upper House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
57 of 150 38%
Argentina
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas for the Upper House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
96 of 257 37.4%
Mexico
(MMP)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas for the Upper House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
184 of 500 36.8%
Tanzania, United Republic of
(FPTP)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
126 of 350 36%
Spain
(Parallel)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas for the Upper House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
126 of 350 36%
Uganda
(FPTP)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
135 of 386 35%
Angola
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
75 of 220 34.1%
Kosovo
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
40 of 120 33.3%
Serbia
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
83 of 250 33.2%
Nepal
(Parallel)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
197 of 594 33.2%
Germany
(MMP)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
204 of 622 32.8%
Ecuador
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
40 of 124 32.3%
Slovenia
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
29 of 90 32.2%
Burundi
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas for the Upper House
34 of 106 32.1%
Algeria
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
146 of 462 31.6%
Guyana
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
21 of 67 31.3%
Portugal
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
66 of 230 28.7%
Trinidad and Tobago
(FPTP)
12 of 42 28.6%
Switzerland
(Parallel)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
57 of 200 28.5%
Italy
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
179 of 630 28.4%
Austria
(List PR)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
51 of 183 27.9%
Afghanistan
(SNTV)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas for the Upper House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
69 of 249 27.7%
Macedonia, former Yugoslav Republic (1993-)
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
34 of 123 27.6%
France
(TRS)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas for the Upper House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
155 of 577 26.9%
Tunisia
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
58 of 217 26.7%
South Sudan
(Transition)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas for the Upper House
88 of 332 26.5%
El Salvador
(List PR)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
22 of 84 26.2%
Lesotho
(MMP)
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
31 of 120 25.8%
Bolivia
(MMP)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas for the Upper House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
33 of 130 25.4%
Iraq
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
82 of 325 25.2%
Canada
(FPTP)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
76 of 308 24.7%
Australia
(AV)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
37 of 150 24.7%
Sudan
(MMP)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
87 of 354 24.6%
Namibia
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
19 of 78 24.4%
Kazakhstan
(List PR)
26 of 107 24.3%
Lithuania
(Parallel)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
34 of 141 24.1%
Croatia
(List PR)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
36 of 151 23.8%
Poland
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
109 of 460 23.7%
Kyrgyzstan
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
28 of 120 23.3%
China
(N)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
699 of 3,000 23.3%
Philippines
(Parallel)
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
65 of 287 22.6%
United Kingdom
(FPTP)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
146 of 650 22.5%
Pakistan
(Parallel)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas for the Upper House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
76 of 342 22.2%
Mauritania
(TRS)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas for the Upper House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
21 of 95 22.1%
Eritrea
(FPTP)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
33 of 150 22%
Uzbekistan
(TRS)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
33 of 150 22%
Czech Republic
(List PR)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
44 of 200 22%
Israel
(List PR)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
26 of 120 21.7%
Peru
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
28 of 130 21.5%
Bosnia and Herzegovina
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
9 of 42 21.4%
Greece
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
63 of 300 21%
Cape Verde
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
15 of 72 20.8%
Dominican Republic
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
38 of 183 20.8%
Luxembourg
(List PR)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
12 of 60 20%
Bangladesh
(FPTP)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
69 of 350 19.7%
Honduras
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
25 of 128 19.5%
Guinea
(Parallel)
22 of 114 19.3%
Moldova, Republic of
(List PR)
19 of 101 18.8%
Slovakia
(List PR)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
28 of 150 18.7%
Indonesia
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
104 of 560 18.6%
Montenegro
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
14 of 81 17.3%
Venezuela
(MMP)
28 of 165 17%
Morocco
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
67 of 395 17%
Libya
(Parallel)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
33 of 200 16.5%
Thailand
(Parallel)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
79 of 500 15.8%
Burkina Faso
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
20 of 127 15.7%
Albania
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
22 of 140 15.7%
Korea, Republic of
(Parallel)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
47 of 300 15.7%
Ireland
(STV)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas for the Upper House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
25 of 166 15.1%
Zimbabwe
(FPTP)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
32 of 214 15%
Mongolia
(Parallel)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
11 of 76 14.5%
Chile
(Other: Binominal System)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
17 of 120 14.2%
Cameroon
(Parallel)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
25 of 180 13.9%
Djibouti
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
9 of 65 13.8%
Somalia
(Transition)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
38 of 275 13.8%
Romania
(MMP)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
55 of 412 13.3%
Guatemala
(List PR)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
21 of 158 13.3%
Niger
(Parallel)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
15 of 113 13.3%
Palestinian Territory, Occupied
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
17 of 132 12.9%
Colombia
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas for the Upper House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
21 of 166 12.7%
Paraguay
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas for the Upper House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
10 of 80 12.5%
Sierra Leone
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
15 of 121 12.4%
Uruguay
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas for the Upper House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
12 of 99 12.1%
Georgia
(Parallel)
18 of 150 12%
Jordan
(MMP)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
18 of 150 12%
Togo
(FPTP)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
9 of 81 11.1%
Liberia
(FPTP)
8 of 73 11%
India
(FPTP)
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
59 of 545 10.8%
Cyprus
(List PR)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
6 of 56 10.7%
Armenia
(Parallel)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
14 of 131 10.7%
Mali
(TRS)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
15 of 147 10.2%
Côte d’Ivoire
(Other: FPTP/PBV)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
26 of 255 10.2%
Ghana
(FPTP)
28 of 275 10.2%
Kenya
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
22 of 224 9.8%
Hungary
(MMP)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
35 of 386 9.1%
Malta
(STV)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
6 of 69 8.7%
Brazil
(List PR)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas for the Upper House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
44 of 513 8.6%
Panama
(Parallel)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
6 of 71 8.5%
Botswana
(FPTP)
  • Voluntary quotas adopted by political parties
5 of 63 7.9%
Sri Lanka
(List PR)
13 of 225 5.8%
Haiti
(TRS)
4 of 99 4%
Lebanon
(BV)
4 of 128 3.1%
Egypt
(Parallel)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
10 of 508 2%
Taiwan
(Parallel)
  • Legislated quotas for the Single/Lower House
  • Legislated quotas at the Sub-national level
of 113 -1%

 

Join the Conversation

No comments

  1. I agree too! Working on many levels is a must, including reforming our political system. Thank you Dr. Chrabieh!

  2. Thank you Dr. Chrabieh for this article. I am for a temporary quota but I understand what you are proposing and I agree. Why asking for less?

  3. Merci docteure Chrabieh. Je suis aussi d’accord pour demander 56 pour cent. Et pour renouveller notre systeme socio politique. Il est dommage aussi de voir que ce sont des femmes en premier lieu qui minent les efforts des femmes.

  4. Dr., how come Lebanon is at the bottom of the list? Is “Lebanon the land of freedom” a myth? It seems it is… Freedom without justice and equality isn’t freedom.

  5. Once again an excellent post and good problematic you are raising Dr. Chrabieh. I salute your courage and boldness 🙂
    Best wishes !!

  6. I watched Women in Front yesterday evening on MTV. Good to see that women are finally trying to push through. Still, as you are saying Dr. Chrabieh, if they agree on applying the same logic that oppresses them, they won’t be really working to build a sustainable democracy in Lebanon.

  7. “The introduction of gender quota systems has been
    influenced to a great extent by recommendations from
    international and regional organizations, and supported by actors working at the country level. For example, the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action, which called on
    governments to take steps to ensure women’s equal
    access to, and full participation in, power structures
    and decision-making fora. Measures have been successfully introduced in some countries, with Southern Africa taking the lead. Yet, in others, quotas have not
    resulted in an increase in the number of women in politics, and, occasionally, have had the reverse effect.
    Reserved seats and legislated quotas are quite different from the voluntary quotas adopted by political parties. Reserved seats typically guarantee the presence of a
    set number of women in the legislature (often with separate electoral arrangements), whereas voluntary party quotas normally ensure women’s presence as candidates in
    the electoral process.
    There is no guarantee, however, that the latter will result in the election of women”.

  8. Thank you all !!
    To Roland Kahwaji : as the quota is voluntary, there is every chance that, in practice, it will not be enforced by political parties which maintain firm control over the
    selection of candidates to compete in an election. All political parties in Lebanon maintain patronage systems and old boys networks which make it difficult for women to infiltrate the party leadership. Many parties operate without clear and transparent rules on candidate selection and are dominated by male leaders, hindering women’s access
    to the legislature. Also, many quotas are simply not enforced or they are adhered to
    in the most minimal way possible. If political parties may meet a 30 percent target of women on lists, those women will be often placed at the bottom in largely unelectable positions. They should be coupled with a placement mandate such as in South Africa.
    Nevertheless, refer again to the conclusion of my article and why I don’t agree with the quota system.

  9. Nice blog and posts Dr. Chrabieh. Congratulations! Also to all your colleagues – authors! Enjoying reading and discovering new visions and approaches.
    Our country is not democratic. I agree. Even when it concerns our political system: confessionnalism. True based on the consensus of sectarian communities, still, there are unchanged quotas for so many years, exacerbation of sectarian identities, absence of national common identity for all lebanese, ‘small’ minorities have practically no rights, and non-religious Lebanese are pariah.

  10. Dr. Chrabieh, looking at the numbers… OMG !! this is a disaster !! I honestly am not able to understand how people – and especially women – in Lebanon aren’t reacting more to this. It’s a shame !!! 3.1% ?? At the bottom of the list ??? So, making the biggest hummus or tabboule plate is our specialty? What about Education, Culture, Dialogue, etc.? I just read the ‘Commerce du Levant’ about Education in Lebanon : “un tableau noir” – meaning we just hit the bottom of the list too. How come our university students aren’t doing anything about it? How can we explain this lethargy? I am obviously chocked and outraged. Thank you for this post!

  11. Aujourd’hui, la démocratie tient compte non plus de la majorité mais des minorités, paradoxalement parlant, on peut aboutir à la conclusion superficielle que le système libanais est donc “plus démocratique”.
    Bon cela est une boutade.
    Pour revenir au sujet, je vois mal comment aboutir à un système de quota impliquant les femmes qui va encore complexifier un système politique au Liban. Serons-nous amener à voter alors à un sunnite-homme, une sunnite femme, un chiite homme, une chiite femme, un maronite homme, une maronite femme etc… La première bataille ne devrait pas plutôt concerner la déconfessionalisation du système politique au lieu de l’égalité homme/femme dans le système libanais? Dans ce cas précis, les initiatives de quota pour les femmes ne sont-elles pas un combat de diversion par rapport aux étapes préalables à être accomplies avant tout? Il ne faudrait pas mettre la charrue avant les tauraux, les boeufs et les vaches.
    De toute façon, pour revenir sur un avis personnel, le système de quota est anti-démocratique à la base, on ne doit pas être obligé de choisir mais avoir un choix en toute âme et conscience.
    De plus, dans l’état actuel du système archaique libanais, je pense qu’au lieu d’avoir un homme corrompu, on aurait une femme corrompue, parce que le système est pourri et est bâti sur des mensonges. On peut penser par exemple que la rigidité du système politique est bati par les hommes politiques ou par des systèmes confessionnels alors que l’énergie de base qui maintient ce système est avant tout économique. Tant qu’on aura pas un ascenseur social, non seulement les femmes ont une importance amoindries dans leur rôle vis-à-vis non pas de la société au niveau familal mais au sens large, sociétal. Mais ce constat est également valable pour la classe moyenne aujourd’hui inexistante qui est le premier pas vers beaucoup d’égalités d’ordre économiques, en matière d’égalité des sexes etc… Il faut donc libérer les forces vives de la nation aujourd’hui enfermées dans un carcan de cartels économiques et cela simplifiera beaucoup de choses et de problèmes qu’on connait actuellement.
    Si par conséquent, un endroit ou les femmes doivent agir, c’est avant tout s’intégrer dans un système économique et aboutir à des places cruciales notamment au sein de l’executif économique. Est-ce qu’on a une femme à la tête d’une grande entreprise libanaise? Banque? Compagnie aérienne? Institution de l’état genre IDAL ou même publique genre FSI, ou DGA? Mais l’argent ne dénature-t-il pas les causes les plus nobles?
    Il faut aussi arrêter de dilapider vainement – parce que le système actuel ne le permet pas – les énergies pour des causes certes nobles mais s’attaquer au fond de la problématique.

    1. Je suis tout à fait d’accord 🙂 D’ailleurs c’est ce que je dis dans mon article. Je suis avec en premier la réforme de notre système de gestion socio-politique. C’est pourquoi d’ailleurs je n’ai pas accepté de me présenter pour les élections parlementaires bien qu’on me l’ait demandé 😉 à titre d’indépendante évidemment!
      La cause des femmes est à travailler en parallèle.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *