Adonis Diaries

Free Tribune for Third Voice? In solidarity of civil neutrality?!

Posted on: December 8, 2011

Free Tribune for the Third Voice: In solidarity of civil neutrality?

Do you think there is a difference between State neutrality and citizen neutrality toward serious issues?  For example, if a State government decides to keep a neutral stand with respect to another State undergoing violent political or civil upheaval, is it the responsibility of the citizen to obey the State position and keep his mouth shut relative to the turmoil that the citizens in the other State are experiencing?

If the government decides to get engaged and meddle in another State affairs, on the grounds that the citizens are being humiliated and their human rights abridged or denied, do you think that the citizens should follow suit, on the assumption that the government knows better and have good, timely, and unbiased pieces of intelligence that the common citizen lack?

Should the government hide or tamper with accurate information and keep them out of reach of the common citizen, on the assumption that citizen would care less of being inundated with irrelevant information?

If citizen could not enjoy access to social platforms in order to form their own mind and sort out the lies from the genuine information, do you think that civil social performance in exercising democratic choices would be abridged and biased toward government overwhelming power in subordinating news to its favored positions?

I have no doubt that your response will be: “The citizen should reserve his right to express his opinion, in any way possible, if he feels strongly about an issue, particularly undignified human rights violations…”  And yet, most US citizens, are censured, implicitly and a few times explicitly, to making their opinion known by the vast majority of the people.  For example, when the major dailies and medias exercise self-censure in order not to anger the government, don’t you think that the citizen suffer from lack of timely and accurate information and important pieces of intelligence in order to form a correct opinion?

As you read “Free Tribune for the Third Voice” what does that imply?  That there is the voice of the power-to-be and the voice of the opposition movement, and the voice of those who prefer not to take a stand one way or another?  What if the third voice demand that it be dedicated “In solidarity of civil neutrality?”  What kind of neutrality?

And does civility means to be practically neutral by not voicing or expressing your opinion, one way or another, in order to keeping the peace in the community, in effect establishing a faked unity that could not withstand the storm of one member venting his outrage…?

If “In solidarity of civil neutrality” is explained as:

1.  “Placing the interest of a nation above all and not getting implicated in external political conflicts over which we have no control…”(Question: Who characterizes the interest of a nation? Are citizens involved in that process?…)

2.  “Civil neutrality is a personal choice relative to what I think is best for my country as a citizen…independently of whom we support…to leave our personal preferences and our religious affiliation aside for preserving the unity and peace in the common community…” (what that mean? Are you siding with the referee in every game, as if the referee is the game and you came to watch it, or as if a political referee is not biased, one way or another…)

3. ” Civil neutrality means to finding a way for communicating our engagement toward the other citizen, without endangering the social fabric: a way that would enhance communication that prevent armed confrontations among us…”  (Thus, the priority is to discovering and applying effective communication means and medium?)

4.  “Civil neutrality expresses a manner of exchanging ideas in respect and good civility…” (Like the aristocratic British in Victorian period?)

5.  “Civil neutrality means that the majority of the citizens desire peace, secure coexistence, and the realization of a better future…” (Nice rhetoric, especially when never forgetting to bring about this elusive “majority”)

6.  “Civil neutrality is to staying above the fray of the confrontation among the political movements that ruin the “integrity” of the nation…” (how integrity is explained? Any sensible examples?)

7.  “Civil neutrality is to resolve to find non-violent solutions to conflicts, in all matter of community differences…” (If government is a party then don’t hope for non-violent resolution…)

8.  “Civil neutrality means to refuse to fight other nations’ battles…” (Battles against what? and for what?)

9. ” Civil neutrality is to sustain the call for a national consensus of non-implication in other nations internal affairs…” (Even if repercussions will reach us inevitably?)

What if all these definitions of civil neutrality were meant to be “Truthful to our vision of a unified country, to maintaining a language of moderation and of inclusion…?” (What vision? inclusion of whom?)

What if all these definitions of civil neutrality had as incentive “Not to be influenced by political machinations of past upheavals, of past civil wars, of past government impasse to governing correctly a nation, of past allegiance to foreign interests and dictate…”

Should I go on? Don’t you already feel that these kind of civil neutralities are total crap, and are voiced by totally unengaged people, and who claim to be very much engaged for the benefit of society…? Don’t these civil neutrality smack of Law and Order positions?  Don’t you think those civil neutral will respond to any candidate who will promise the majority “to bringing back law and order”?

Lebanon  Unity (Alwahda Al-Loubnaniah) does not mean national solidarity (Al Tadamon Al Watani).

Civil Neutrality (Al-Hiyad Al-Madani) does not mean proper well-defined engagement purposes.

Time to eliminate the term “neutrality” in your publication because it means the contrary of engagement and of knowledge.

Let us be clear: We need a Third Voice, fully engaged with definite programs.  The Third Voice has to admit that the political and social structure in Lebanon is not valid for stability, sustainability, security, opportunities, and dignity.The Third Voice has to admit that all political parties and political alliances are still considering the Lebanese as chattels, and we need to work toward a “citizenship State” and abolish all forms of discriminations: Genders, religious affiliations, districts privileges, elite and feudal class privileges…and set up a fair and unbiased election laws…

Note:  This post was inspired by an article posted by the Lebanese web written in French La 3ème voix –

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s




December 2011

Blog Stats

  • 1,481,924 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 811 other followers

%d bloggers like this: