Lebanon, a small, cosmopolitan country on the Mediterranean that shares borders with Syria and Israel, is once again suffering from political deadlock. Apart from external sources of instability—the conflicts raging around both the Syrian and Israeli borders—Lebanon also has internal political problems worth considering, especially after the uprisings of the Arab Spring, which led previous autocratic but somewhat stable systems to collapse.
The causes of Lebanon’s internal political instability, which saw the resignation of Prime Minister Najib Miqati’s 30-member cabinet in March, predates the Lebanese civil war (1975 to 1990) and the rise of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). To understand the Lebanese political system, one has to look back in history to before the origins of the Lebanese Republic.
Various civilizations have left their mark on the region through the centuries: the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Roman Catholic nations from which the Crusaders came, Ottomans, and French. These have given the region a rich cultural and religious diversity. Today, Lebanon’s religious groups include Maronite Christians, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholics, Armenian Orthodox, Sunni Muslims, Druze, and Shii Muslims, among others.
After the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, Lebanon emerged as a state and was brought under the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon. France established the Republic of Lebanon in 1926 as a democratic republic. In 1943, during the Second World War, it granted Lebanon its independence. The Maronite Christians, the largest demographic group, closely allied with the French and the only Eastern Christians never to brake communion with the Roman Catholic Church, assumed the largest representation in government.
In the tripartite political system that has existed since then, the President's office remains mandated to be filled by a Maronite Christian, while the Prime Minister is a Sunni Muslim and the Speaker of the House a Shii Muslim. This would be an awkward and uncomfortable arrangement even under the best of circumstances, but in Lebanon’s case it has became the source of growing antagonism as the region’s demographics have changed dramatically. Sunni Muslims now outnumber Maronite Christians, and yet they remain underrepresented in government and barred from the presidency. Moreover, Syria’s influence on Lebanon’s politics has persisted, even after the withdrawal of its troops in 2005.
Lebanon’s democracy could be described as a “consociational democracy”—a term coined by the Dutch political scientist Arend Lijphart to denote a government whose political elite negotiates the politics of accommodation between different groups or “pillars” of a fragmented society in order to achieve a stable democracy. A consociational democracy seeks fair representation for minority groups, but Lijphart has always held that a consociational democracy is inherently less stable than a liberal democracy.
One of the preconditions for the success of such a democracy is an effective working relationship of political elites, which functions to ensure a balance of power among multiple subcultures. This is problematic in the Lebanese system, in which there is often more disagreement than agreement on major issues. Unbalanced political power gives rise to conflict.
Another condition is that there must be a relatively low total load on the political decision-making apparatus. According to Lijphart, in 1968 there was a low total load on the political structure, but in 2013 this is not the case anymore.
It is because that these conditions have not been met that Lebanon experiences increased instability. While external regional tensions exacerbate the problem, hardening sectarian positions within Lebanon, they could also help to focus the government’s priorities inwards on creating the conditions necessary for improved stability.
a global affairs media network
Internal Obstacles to Lebanon’s Political Stability
June 24, 2013
Lebanon, a small, cosmopolitan country on the Mediterranean that shares borders with Syria and Israel, is once again suffering from political deadlock. Apart from external sources of instability—the conflicts raging around both the Syrian and Israeli borders—Lebanon also has internal political problems worth considering, especially after the uprisings of the Arab Spring, which led previous autocratic but somewhat stable systems to collapse.
The causes of Lebanon’s internal political instability, which saw the resignation of Prime Minister Najib Miqati’s 30-member cabinet in March, predates the Lebanese civil war (1975 to 1990) and the rise of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). To understand the Lebanese political system, one has to look back in history to before the origins of the Lebanese Republic.
Various civilizations have left their mark on the region through the centuries: the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Roman Catholic nations from which the Crusaders came, Ottomans, and French. These have given the region a rich cultural and religious diversity. Today, Lebanon’s religious groups include Maronite Christians, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholics, Armenian Orthodox, Sunni Muslims, Druze, and Shii Muslims, among others.
After the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, Lebanon emerged as a state and was brought under the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon. France established the Republic of Lebanon in 1926 as a democratic republic. In 1943, during the Second World War, it granted Lebanon its independence. The Maronite Christians, the largest demographic group, closely allied with the French and the only Eastern Christians never to brake communion with the Roman Catholic Church, assumed the largest representation in government.
In the tripartite political system that has existed since then, the President's office remains mandated to be filled by a Maronite Christian, while the Prime Minister is a Sunni Muslim and the Speaker of the House a Shii Muslim. This would be an awkward and uncomfortable arrangement even under the best of circumstances, but in Lebanon’s case it has became the source of growing antagonism as the region’s demographics have changed dramatically. Sunni Muslims now outnumber Maronite Christians, and yet they remain underrepresented in government and barred from the presidency. Moreover, Syria’s influence on Lebanon’s politics has persisted, even after the withdrawal of its troops in 2005.
Lebanon’s democracy could be described as a “consociational democracy”—a term coined by the Dutch political scientist Arend Lijphart to denote a government whose political elite negotiates the politics of accommodation between different groups or “pillars” of a fragmented society in order to achieve a stable democracy. A consociational democracy seeks fair representation for minority groups, but Lijphart has always held that a consociational democracy is inherently less stable than a liberal democracy.
One of the preconditions for the success of such a democracy is an effective working relationship of political elites, which functions to ensure a balance of power among multiple subcultures. This is problematic in the Lebanese system, in which there is often more disagreement than agreement on major issues. Unbalanced political power gives rise to conflict.
Another condition is that there must be a relatively low total load on the political decision-making apparatus. According to Lijphart, in 1968 there was a low total load on the political structure, but in 2013 this is not the case anymore.
It is because that these conditions have not been met that Lebanon experiences increased instability. While external regional tensions exacerbate the problem, hardening sectarian positions within Lebanon, they could also help to focus the government’s priorities inwards on creating the conditions necessary for improved stability.
