Al-Jozo, a philosopher of the 21st century

The Mufti of Mount Lebanon, Sheikh Mohammad Ali al-Jozo presented a philosophical and analytical breakthrough. This man who is known for insightful analysis and shrewd vision has once again presented a challenge to modern political philosophy. Needless to say that the previous words are in the domain of irony if not sarcasm, however, when a religious authority steps on every logical foundation and allows itself to become a dysfunctional tool of regression, one no longer knows whether to laugh or to drawn in tears.

A translation of al-Jozo’s propositions could be the following: “referendums are a Syrian tradition that the regime uses in order to falsify the people’s will in choosing the President where there is no freedom and no democracy and no human dignity. (…) Referendum is a word that expresses the confiscation of the people’s will to choose the ruler they want, this is why we would hate it if this word would be used in Lebanon, for the sake of preserving the dignity of the Lebanese individual and his freedom. (…) The real allies of the United States are the Syrian and Iranian regimes, because Syria hasn’t shot a single bullet against Israel since it occupied the Golan, and Iran hasn’t fought a single war in defense of the Palestinian people. (…) If Syria did not commit the crimes in Lebanon then it is its allies in Lebanon who did.”

These fragments can certainly become basic materials for the study of argumentation. Teachers might find great uses of such a strategy of argumentation if not for its complete contradiction and irrelevance then for its ridiculous pretence of making sense. However, there is another deeper aspect to al-Jozo’s propositions, one that reflects an intellectual and epistemological current that is gaining ground around the world.

Let us start with the first theme: referendum. It is obvious that the Mufti (who, in Islam, is supposed to have analytical and hermeneutic skills that enable him to read and interpret Koranic texts) has no familiarity with political terms. In fact I would even say that he is unable to make the distinction between the notion of referendum in politics, and the actual use of it in specific time and place. When one says that “referendum is a word that expresses the confiscation of the people’s will to choose” one is defining referendum in exactly its opposite meaning. This alone should send the respectable mufti back to mufti school with emphasis on the study of the political structure in Islam but also republican systems. In fact if anything referendum is what empowers people and enables them, and them alone, to choose. In Lebanon however, the communitarian structure, or one should assign to it its real name, the racist structure, does not recognize people as having equal representation rights. To put it more lucidly, the right of the community is more important than the right of the individual. In this sense people must not have equal rights because there are more Shiites than there are Sunnis, and there are more Muslims than there are Christians, and since the individual is a priori seen as representing his/her community’s interests and not his/her own or his/her national interests, elections are seen as a flaw in the system and not as the source of power. In other words, elections are what unfortunately has to be formally held but essentially neutralized. The role of an election law in Lebanon is paradoxically not to assure the equal representation of people but exactly the opposite. A good electoral law is the one who prevents the equal representation of all people regardless of communities and preserves the conflicting interests of these communities. To put it more bluntly, electoral laws in Lebanon have the role to postpone – without preventing – civil wars, or organize them in an economically profitable pattern that can satisfy the interests of the ruling class in the prevalent community or communities. Here, one wonders about the human dignity and freedom of choice al-Jozo is talking about, and one wonders even more about the interests this cleric seeks to satisfy, since by definition the interest of the clerics in Lebanon are conflicting with those of the individual. In this sense the designation “people” refers less to the common people in Lebanon and more to the religious class al-Jozo belongs to.

The second proposition is “The real allies of the United States are the Syrian and Iranian regimes, because Syria hasn’t shot a single bullet against Israel since it occupied the Golan, and Iran hasn’t fought a single war in defense of the Palestinian people.” This insightful geopolitical analysis has in fact foundations which might surprise some. It could be said for instance that during the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union were allies even though the term War designates animosities between the two opposing blocks. However, this statement expresses the mutual benefits that both conflicting parties reaped from this Cold War. In other words, both the United States and the Soviet Union depended on their opposing force in their political, economical and military expansion. But a common interest does not automatically engender alliance; in fact it is very common for opponents to have a common interest without being close to forming an alliance. Al-Jozo’s simplistic and naïve (not to judge the underlying reasons for this accusation at this point) geopolitical analysis reflects the real meaning and implications of this statement. Al-Jozo’s function as a Muslim cleric imposes on him some rhetorical presumptions. The fact that he is addressing Muslims for whom the United States and Israel are the intrinsic image of the Other, means that he must compete in his hostility towards this other with Syria and Iran who represent a different strategy of resistance (if al-Jozo’s strategy can qualify as resistance). Accusing the two countries which have assumed the role of open confrontation – at least political one – with Israel and the US of being in fact their allies is a weak attempt to show himself as the real force of resistance against these structural enemies. This discourse of fake resistance, or as Marx calls it “false consciousness”, is the cornerstone of an old strategy of the traditionalist Arab regimes namely what is now called the “moderates” (this is not a strategy the Arab regimes have a monopoly on, in fact many post-colonial regimes notably in Latin America used the same strategy towards the US). The starting point of this strategy is a complete subordination to the dominant power, in this case the US. The aim is the preservation of regimes that are unable to provide a real resistance or liberation from neither the neo-colonial domination nor a real development for their societies and economies. This aspect of the Arab relations to the dominant West is not recent; in fact it exists at least since the first post-colonial governments when the opposition between the revolutionary states (who overthrew their collaborationist and incompetent governments) and the traditionalist ones were fervent at the times of Abdel Nasser. The aim of these regimes, notably Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iraq (until the revolution), was to oppose any force of liberation that might put in danger the interest of the ruling classes in their respective countries. In this sense if the choice is between preserving a limited power over their country that comes only with the country’s subjugation to the colonial powers, the plundering of its resources, and the blockage of its development on one hand, and a revolutionary liberation movement that can liberate these countries from foreign domination but also from local regimes on the other, then the choice was the preservation of the regimes on the expense of liberation. The same dynamics are present now. It is inconceivable to look at Saudi Arabia for instance as a force of resistance or liberation, or Jordan, or nowadays Egypt. If anything these are the locust of colonial hegemony in the Middle East and are an intrinsic and fundamental part of the structure of colonial domination along with Israel and other less influential countries. A strategic analysis that takes in consideration not only common interest but correlating strategies, show that the undeclared allies of Israel and (declared allies of) the US are the “moderate” Arab countries, namely Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, and the Arab Emirates. Al-Jozo is of course part of this whole discourse of “moderation” whose main strategy is the “false consciousness” of being the enemy of Israel while in fact being agents of the colonizer.

Finally, al-Jozo’s third proposition, “if Syria did not commit the crimes in Lebanon then it is its allies in Lebanon who did”, is a relevant example of what post-modern justice is about. Like the concept of preventive warfare, preventive judgment takes place within the system of values which surpasses the fundamental axiom of modern judicial discourse: one is innocent until proven guilty. Needless to say, this undermines the whole structure of justice, regardless of one’s convictions and opinions. The Bush doctrine of preventive war found a great success within part of the Lebanese society, namely those, like al-Jozo, who are certain of Syria’s responsibility of the assassinations in Lebanon. The problem is not the conviction itself but the way it imposes itself as absolute truth and rejects any other conviction and any possibility of rational discussion. There is no need for logical discussion (despite the fact that material evidence do not exist), in fact there is an aggressive refusal of any form of discussion in a puritan, dogmatic manner; any other opinion is a participation in the crime and an act of blasphemy. This structure whereas power equals justice disregards all the foundations of freedom of speech and thought. One can no longer have a different opinion; the only possible “freedom” is the freedom to agree with the more powerful. Al-Jozo’s certainty does not even need to be accompanied with a logical analysis; the fact that he believes this is true is enough for this to be true. Truth is no longer a logical examination, a debatable notion that is never absolute; truth is a dogmatic, religious belief and any disagreement with this Truth is a blasphemous act that must be punished. The very act of skepticism which was at the basis of philosophical investigation is no longer tolerated. The paradox is that this dogmatism is part of the bigger discourse that promotes democracy, human rights, and freedom while at the same time destroying their theoretical and epistemological foundations. Al-Jozo in this perspective can be assimilated to the new discourse of values spreading all over the globe; he is a philosopher of the 21st century revolution of democratic fanaticism.