Lebanon’s sectarian balance, established by the National Pact, has faced significant challenges leading to civil war and ongoing instability. The Taif Agreement attempted reforms but failed to eliminate sectarian influences. Hezbollah’s rise and an elite-controlled economy have exacerbated political stagnation. To secure stability, Lebanon must transition to a secular governance framework that prioritizes citizenship over sectarian allegiance.
Lebanon’s historical context shows a fragile sectarian balance established by the 1943 National Pact, aiming to distribute power among its religious groups. This arrangement aimed to ensure representation; however, it ultimately sowed discord, contributing to the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990). The Taif Agreement (1989) sought to amend the underlying shortcomings of this framework but has struggled to provide long-lasting stability.
The National Pact formalized a rigid confessional power-sharing system upon Lebanon’s independence, assigning key political roles based on religious identity. The presidency was allocated to a Maronite Christian, the premiership to a Sunni Muslim, and the parliamentary speakership to a Shia Muslim, with legislative seats distributed following a discordant 1932 census. This model perpetuated sectarian divisions and forestalled national unity, concentrating power within sectarian groups and leading to competition for resources rather than cooperative governance.
Changes in demographics and politics highlighted the limitations of the National Pact, particularly among underrepresented Shia populations. The influx of Palestinian refugees post-1948 further complicated sectarian dynamics, and rising Pan-Arab nationalism during the 1950s and 1960s deepened political divides. By the 1970s, Lebanon emerged as a focal point of regional conflict, exacerbated by the actions of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the ensuing civil war in 1975.
The Taif Agreement was intended to end the civil war and reform governance, resetting legislative representation to equal Christian and Muslim shares and transferring power from the Maronite president to the Sunni prime minister. It also included disarmament provisions, yet groups like Hezbollah retained their military capability, further entrenching sectarian divisions. While it restructured power, Taif maintained the influence of established sectarian leaders, preserving a cycle of elite dominance.
Post-war, Hezbollah emerged as a significant player, creating parallel governance structures and assuming state functions. As the group grew, Lebanon was characterized by an economic landscape dominated by a narrow class of sectarian elites. These individuals, exemplified by Rafik Hariri’s reconstruction efforts, prioritized personal wealth over national economic welfare, leading to crippling national debt and fostering a system of patronage.
The assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005 sparked the Cedar Revolution, a mass protest against Syrian control. Citizens from different sects united in their demand for accountability and sovereignty, compelling Syrian forces to withdraw. Although this brief moment of unity shattered typical sectarian divides, disagreements quickly re-emerged, stalling significant political reform.
Following the Taif Agreement, Lebanon has continued to experience cycles of political impasse and economic distress. The 2015 waste crisis and subsequent financial collapse in 2019 revealed the deep-seated failures of the sectarian model. Even as protests erupted in 2019 against the status quo, the entrenched sectarian system remained intact, eliciting little change and leaving Lebanon in a chronic state of instability.
For Lebanon to foster genuine stability, it is imperative to dismantle the sectarian framework enforced by the National Pact and reiterated by the Taif Agreement. Adopting a secular, pluralistic governance model that emphasizes citizenship over sectarian identity stands as the only viable path. The pressing question for Lebanon is not whether change is necessary, but whether it can be attained amidst existing power structures.
In summary, Lebanon’s journey from sectarianism has been fraught with challenges stemming from its foundational political structures. The National Pact and subsequent agreements, such as Taif, have perpetuated sectarianism, ultimately leading to governance failures and social unrest. For Lebanon to achieve a stable future, a shift towards a secular governance model prioritizing unity over division is crucial.
Original Source: moderndiplomacy.eu
