FROM : The Challenges of Pluralism in Lebanon and the Culture of Change in the Lebanese Political Thought

Review 1 comments

1. While it is good to briefly present various perspectives on the “role and purpose” of Lebanon, by the end of the introduction it is still not clear what the article specifically sets out to do. Nor is its structure set out. Language from the abstract can be borrowed to do this, but it must be noted that the abstract is not part of the article, and cannot therefore be relied upon solely for structure.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. This was added at the end of the introduction. The abstract was also expanded in a way it shows the paper framework development.

2. Quite a few paragraphs present a confusing line of thought. For example, on one occasion it is argued that sectarianism was already established in 1860, yet the argument is that “French imperialism […] “aid the foundation for the sectarian system in Lebanon”. But then the writer states that the difference between the two eras is actually not in imperialism but in the economic system. So what did French imperialism change?

Response: I have accordingly done some modifications to emphasize on this point by adding a new passage by (Geukjian) as well as by leaving my personal comment/input.

3. Another sudden change of argument comes later, when regional and geopolitical concepts (which are well-discussed and relevant) spring out of a constitutional discussion, all still under “Change in the Feudal system”. Perhaps the author meant to separate from that subheading somehow, but this was not done. On another occasion, the author jumps to a discussion of neutrality, heavily relying on al-Majzoub’s work without any personal input. This is again relevant to Lebanon, but not introduced nor analysed sufficiently. Furthermore, neutrality during the Cold War (e.g. Non- aligned coalition, Third Way, 1958 conflict, etc.) is not touched upon.

Response: Thanks for this. personal input/comment was included in different places in this passage three times.

4. Generally speaking, the article would benefit immensely from better structure and signposting. It is still not clear what specific change (or instances of change, or if it is the lack of change) is being analysed. On one occasion, over seven paragraphs all seem to be a paraphrasing of Harik’s ideas. The author needs to input their own analysis.

Response: Thanks for this. Personal input/comments in different places, as well as own analysis and new literature (Lijphart, EL-Khazen and Hudson) were added to the manuscript.

Review 2 comments

1. it is very difficult to understand which type of literature and discipline the article refers to (es: political history, intellectual history, history, political science). As a consequence, the author’s exposition of the different ideas of political change in Lebanon results as a disaggregated and self-centered list of references lacking of a coherent critical framing and rationale. The very author’s argument is difficult to grasp.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. This was added in the abstract as well as in the introduction, in addition to different places in the manuscript by adding own analysis and personal input/comment.

2. Second, in introducing the article, the author does not stress any point of relevance and adequate historical-theoretical justification of the importance of the topic and
how it engages the existing literature or scholarly/public debate. The same main subject (i.e., the role and purpose of Lebanon) is not adequately presented. Indeed, over history, the question of the nature of Lebanon has been a prominent source of debate among Lebanese intellectuals according to radically different approaches and historical rationales stretching from the idealistic nationalism of the 1920s to more geopolitical understandings on the eve and after the Civil War. However, this historicization is completely absent from the article. In a similar vein, the author does not adequately justify and historicize the rationale for the choice of the intellectuals selected and their intellectual trajectories. All of this is fundamental to adequately contextualize the positions of the selected intellectuals and the very tropic shifts that the question underwent over time.

Response: I have done some modifications especially at the end of the introduction so that it stresses the relevance and importance of the topic, as well as in the core body of the manuscript by own analysis and relevant info.

3. Third, the author extensively focuses on the transition from the feudal system to the capitalist/nation-state one, but he/she does not provide any adequate justification
for the choice of this specific period, neither a solid historical contextualization. Therefore, one asks: why is it important? How it relates with the present? Why is the re-temporalization of the birth of the Lebanese republican system important to the scholarly/public debate?

Response: Thanks for this. Personal input/comments in different places, as well as own analysis and new literature (Lijphart, EL-Khazen Geukjian and Hudson) were added to the manuscript.

4. Fourth, while providing the theoretical definitions of Lebanese consociationalism the author refers only to Messarra, ignoring the outstanding body of scholarship on the subject, including the very Lijparth, who was the first main global theorizer of consociationalism. The very relation between pluralism and the role and purpose of Lebanon remains vague and weakly problematized.

Response: True and thanks again. Lijphart, among other scholars were quoted and analyzed. Personal comments/input was also added.