The two Kaimakamates (1842-1860)
The cooperation between the Druze and Omar Pasha was short lived. Feeling duped, they turned again to the Maronites. The Jumblatti party [1] committed to re-introducing the Shihab dynasty and to returning part of the indemnity paid for acts of war but it could not bring itself to put this pledge in writing. Omar Pasha's preventive arrest of some Druze leaders still caused an uprising. The rebels were subdued by Assad Pasha[2], wali[3] of Beirut and Omar Pasha was replaced by Muhammad Pasha[4]. But, in Istanbul, the representatives of the European powers and the Porte had arrived at an agreement on a bicephalous regime called kaimakamate[5]. This hybrid solution the paternity of which is attributed to Metternich[6] appeared as a half-way house between positions taken by the United Kingdom who supported the Druze, France « protector »
of eastern Christians in conjunction with Rome and the Porte who seemed unable to impose its direct control.
The compromise consisted in establishing two « nations »
set up on two (confessionally non-homogenous) territories on either side of the Beirut-Damsacus highway. Two kaimakams, or « governors »
were appointed on 1 january1843 : Haydar Abil Lama[7] for the Christians and Ahmed Arslan[8] for the Druze, both answering to the pasha of Sidon. The Porte had not clearly outlined their responsibilities and played on religious tensions by attaching mostly Christian sectors to the mostly Sunni pashalik of Tripoli, or setting them under its own direct authority. This application of the divide and rule principle had London's backing as the British envisaged forcing the Christians to abandon their lands to migrate northward. French diplomats were also considering a Christian exodus, but with a view to settle with them the region around Algiers conquered in 1830. Meanwhile, Paris had to forego for good its project of restoration of the Shihab emirate after Amin[9] , son of Bashir II converted to Islam in 1845.
The Ottomans tried to offer the European Powers the image of an appeased regionBut a second war soon flared up along even more sectarian lines than in 1841. It spread mostly in the mixed territories between the end of April and the beginning of June 1845. The outcome of hard-fought battles and violence against unarmed civilians, placed the northern part of the Mountain under Druze control but for the first time French property and citizens had been attacked. Under pressure from the European consuls Wajihi Pasha[10]the new wali of Sidon, who favoured the Druze, was pressed to put an end to the fighting. Wakils[11] were called together which he presided over: a truce agreement was drafted then signed; it stipulated forgetting the past. Two months later, Shekib Effendi[12], dispatched by the Porte, was asking European nationals to withdraw, he called the overlords of both camps to a meeting and had the ringleaders arrested, be they Christian or Druze. But, under pressure from Rose he soon had to release them and the disarmament was left unfinished. As against that, he did manage to impose a so-called « règlement » to both parties.
Shekib Effendi's Règlement, which defined the contents of the dual kaimakamate, enshrined the concept of « communal autonomy »
, in the event a sectarian division on a territorial basis. The wali of Sidon may appoint or destitute the kaimakam. The latter could raise militia on a temporary basis to keep order. He was supported by a mixed council counting a vice-kaimakam, a judge and councillors drawn from the people. Those were salaried and charged with two missions: financial (tax collection) and legal. They had to be from Mountain stock and still live there and belong to one of the authorised faiths (Maronite, Druze, Greek Catholic, Greek Orthodox or Sunni). One councillor represented the Shia in the council but the Sunni qadi[13] ruled for them. Shekib Effendi appointed councillors for life. Each Kaimakam nominated the wakils for his community; they were tasked with the practicalities of tax collection and the implementation of legal rulings. This Règlement upset the traditional set up, to which the Druze remained more attached, because it shifted part of the lords' authority towards the councillors. The Muqata'ji[14] were left with hearing cases in first instance and had to take to the wakil cases involving persons of other faiths. The recognition of five (nay six, though the Shia do not enjoy the same rights), communities was perceived by the European Powers as a licence to reinforce their clientelist policies.
