Cedars to the East: A Study of Modern Lebanon

The political history of the Middle East is a complex story wrought with instability, conflict, religious and ethnic cleavages, and artificial imperial and colonial borders. These challenges manifest themselves in varied political systems, norms, and tensions--both domestic and external--in the countries throughout the region. Looking at Lebanon, we see a country that has been, for centuries, a central meeting place of all these conflicts and challenges. From its time under Ottoman rule, Lebanon was beset by religious conflict and infighting among rival religious sects. These violent flare-ups were exacerbated by European intervention in Lebanese affairs. Under French colonization, Lebanon’s confessional system (allocating parliamentary seats based on religious affiliation) was institutionalized, and has been in place ever since. Many argue that this system is the only way to guarantee representation of all the country’s minority groups, while others argue that the system is wrought with corruption and perpetuates reinforcing cleavages, which came to a head during the 1975-1990 Lebanese Civil War.

This paper traces the historical background of Lebanon, providing context for the country’s many conflicts and explaining why key political decisions were made. Secondly, it analyzes Lebanon’s political system, focusing on the uniqueness of their confessional system of seat allocation. This section weighs the system’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as its potential to be manipulated. Finally, using corruption data and information from the large black market economy surrounding vote-buying, a case is constructed for the adoption of a proportional system of representation, replacing the dysfunctional methods used in Lebanon today.

The Historical Perspective: Lest We Be Doomed to Repeat It

When looking at Lebanon, the student of history must realize that it has been and continues to be a country struggling to find its identity. As far back as the First Crusade, Lebanon found itself at the mercy of foreign powers imposing their political will on domestic issues. Lebanon was in the main path of the First Crusade's advance on Jerusalem. Later, Frankish nobles occupied present-day Lebanon as part of the southeastern Crusader States.1 The southern half of present-day Lebanon formed the northern march of the Kingdom of Jerusalem; the northern half was the heartland of the County of Tripoli.2 Although Saladin eliminated Christian control of the Holy Land around 1190, the Crusader states in Lebanon and Syria were better defended, and Muslim control of Lebanon was not reestablished until the late 13th century under the Mamluk sultans of Egypt.3 During this time, local Maronite Christian groups were strengthened and supported by the Europeans. They were given more of a political voice in the Crusader States and found wealth trading with Venetian merchants.4 Once given this taste of freedom under a Christian majority, the Maronites would be satisfied with little less once Lebanon returned to Arab rule.

Skipping ahead to the era of Ottoman rule, we see the beginnings of Lebanon’s modern day confessional system. Part of the Ottoman strategy for maintaining peace throughout the empire was the use of the millet system of governance; whereby non-Muslims were allowed to worship freely, live under their own laws, and enjoy a sort of protected status within the Empire.5 Each of these semi-autonomous millets paid higher taxes and were subject to an Ottoman governor,6 but different groups were able to pursue their own interests with little interference from the imperial government. Unfortunately, this tentative peace could not be maintained indefinitely. During the nineteenth century, Beirut became the most important port of the region, supplanting Acre to the south.7 This was mostly because Mount Lebanon became a centre of silk production for export to Europe. While this new industry quickly increased the region’s wealth, since most of the silk produced went to Marseille, the French began to have a more direct impact on politics.8 Under Emir Bashir II, financial ties to France grew heightening the economic and political isolation of the Druze, and the increasing wealth of the Maronites.9

This discontent grew into an open rebellion. In 1841, conflicts between the impoverished Druze and the Maronite Christians exploded resulting in a massacre of Christians by the Druze at Deir al Qamar.10 The Ottomans attempted to create peace by dividing Mt Lebanon into a Christian district and a Druze district, but this would merely create geographic powerbases for the warring parties, and it plunged the region back into civil conflict which included not only the sectarian warfare but a Maronite revolt against the Feudal class. Another destabilizing factor was France's support for the Maronite Christians, which in turn led the British to finance the Druze offensives, exacerbating religious and economic tensions between the two communities.11

Druze forces verge of total military victory when the Congress of Europe intervened.12 French forces were deployed to enforce the group’s final decision, another example of foreign interests interfering in Lebanese affairs. The French accepted the Druze as having established control and the Maronites were reduced to a semi-autonomous region around Mt Lebanon, without even direct control over Beirut itself.13 It is estimated that more than 4,000 Christians were killed in the conflict, with another 4,000 dying of destitution, and over 100,000 reduced to refugee status.14 The remainder of the 19th century saw a relative period of stability, as Islamic, Druze and Maronite groups focused on economic and cultural development which saw the founding of the American University of Beirut and a flowering of literary and political activity associated with the attempts to liberalize the Ottoman Empire.15

One of the most destabilizing events in Lebanon’s history was the League of Nations mandate that placed Lebanon under French governance. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, the League of Nations mandated the five provinces that make up present-day Lebanon to the direct control of France in 1922.16 According to the agreements reached at San Remo, having taken Damascus in 1920, France’s control over Syria was recognized, providing the French with a unique opportunity. Wanting to maximize the area under its direct control, contain Syrian influence centered in Damascus, and insure a defensible border, France established the Lebanon-Syrian border on the far side of the Beqaa Valley, territory which had belonged to the province of Damascus for hundreds of years, and was far more attached to Damascus than Beirut by culture and influence.17 This doubled the territory under the control of Beirut, at the expense of what would become the state of Syria, and profoundly altered the demographics of Lebanon.

Overnight, Maronite Christians were reduced to barely more than 50% of the population, while Sunni Muslims in Lebanon saw their numbers increase eightfold and Shi'ite Muslims fourfold.18 Modern Lebanon's constitution, drawn up in 1926, specified a balance of power between the various religious groups, but France designed it to guarantee the political dominance of its Christian allies. The president was required to be a Christian (in practice, a Maronite) and the prime minister a Sunni Muslim.19 On the basis of the 1932 census, parliament seats were divided according to a six-to-five Christian/Muslim ratio.20 The constitution also gave the president veto power over any legislation approved by parliament, virtually ensuring that the 6:5 ratio would not be revised in the event that the population distribution changed.21 By 1960, Muslims were thought to constitute a majority of the population, which contributed to Muslim unrest regarding the political system.22

The French Mandate expired in 1946 and Lebanon finally achieved independence. Alternating periods of turmoil and political stability have marked Lebanon’s history from independence, with prosperity built on Beirut's position as a regional center for finance and trade.23 Beirut became a prime location for institutions of international commerce and finance, as well as wealthy tourists, and enjoyed a reputation as the "Paris of the Middle East" until the outbreak of the civil war.24

The most important and formative event of modern day Lebanon is, without question, the 1975-1990 Lebanese Civil War. Political tensions rooted in the constitution’s inherent inequality led Kamal Junblatt to form a self-proclaimed "democratic, progressive and non-sectarian" front, which later allied itself with the Palestinians.25 This front grouped several nationalist and leftist political parties and organizations that formed the Lebanese National Movement (LNM) in 1976. The conservative forces led by the predominantly Christian Kata'ib (Phalange) Party formed another block called the Lebanese Front.26 The LNM advanced a comprehensive political reform plan, which called for the total abolition of political confessionism and the implementation of wide democratic reforms of the political, electoral, and administrative systems.27 The Lebanese Front rejected these reforms and advocated an alternative, although less articulated, plan that varied from maintaining the status quo to political decentralization and federalism.28 During the first two years of the war, 1975-1976, the balance of forces favored the LNM and their Palestinian allies. They tried to advance their plan but were unable to impose it, especially after the Syrian military Intervention in 1976.29 The Israeli invasion of 1982 dealt a staggering blow to the Palestinians and the LNM and dramatically strengthened the Lebanese Front, bringing its militant leader, Bashir Gemayel, to the presidency.30 Throughout the conflict, Syria, Palestine, Israel, and even the United States played major roles in sustaining the conflict and undermining Lebanese sovereignty. On another level, internal battles of that period (in the Mountain and Shouf area [1983], in Beirut [1984], and in East Sidon [1985]) increased the sectarian character of the Lebanese conflict. Confessional segregation reached its peak and the confessionally-based militias ruled the various regions in closed and semi-closed enclaves.31 In the "Christian areas" the militias spread slogans of a "Christian republic," "Christian security," federalism and partition. In the "Muslim areas," the emerging radical Islamic movements raised the slogans of an Islamic republic.32 After years of conflict, there came a general acceptance that none of the warring factions could decisively win the war, and that there was no alternative to a new compromise ensuring the continuity of Lebanon as an entity having a united central political system. 33

The Taif Agreement constituted a compromise among the Lebanese deputies, political groups and parties, militias and leaders. It tackled many essential points pertaining to the structure of the political system and to the sovereignty of the Lebanese state.34 Indeed, these two issues are interrelated. The mechanism for regaining state sovereignty was preceded by an affirmation of the identity and unity of Lebanon.35 It was also preceded by internal political, administrative and other reforms. The Taif Agreement strengthened the office of Prime minister, making it responsible to the legislature rather than directly to the president; increased the size of the legislature to 128 seats with an even split of Christian and Muslim seats (64 each); and provided for the disarmament of all national and non-national militias.36 After Taif, confessional balance and confessional representation became the top priority in the new constitution; moreover, confessionism was reproduced and further institutionalized.37

With the signing of the Taif Agreement, an uneasy peace came over the Lebanese landscape and the people that had been ravaged and violated by war for decades. Since the end of the war, the Lebanese have conducted several elections, most of the militias have been weakened or disbanded, and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) have extended central government authority over about two-thirds of the country.38 Only Hezbollah retained its weapons, and was supported by Lebanon's parliament in doing so, because it was defending Lebanon against the ongoing Israeli occupation of almost one-quarter of the country, which finally ended in May 2000 because of the attacks launched by Hezbollah on Israeli strongholds on the south of Lebanon.39 Postwar social and political instability, fueled by economic uncertainty and the collapse of the Lebanese currency, led to the resignation of Prime Minister Omar Karami, who was replaced by former Prime Minister Rashid al Sulh, tasked to serve as a caretaker to oversee Lebanon's first parliamentary elections in 20 years.40 By early November 1992, a new parliament had been elected, and Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri had formed a cabinet, retaining for himself the finance portfolio. The formation of a government headed by a successful billionaire businessman was widely seen as a sign that Lebanon would make a priority of rebuilding the country and reviving the economy.41 While problems with basic infrastructure and government services persisted and sovereign debt was piling up quickly, much of the civil war damage has been repaired throughout the country, and many foreign investors and tourists returned under Hariri’s rule. If Lebanon has in part recovered over the past decades from the catastrophic damage to infrastructure of its long civil war, the social and political divisions that gave rise to and sustained that conflict remain largely unresolved. Parliamentary and more recently municipal elections have been held with fewer irregularities and more popular participation than in the immediate aftermath of the conflict, and Lebanese civil society generally enjoys significantly more freedoms than elsewhere in the Arab world.42 However, there are continuing sectarian tensions and unease about Syrian and other external influences.43

During Lebanon's civil war, Syria's troop deployment in Lebanon was legitimized by the Lebanese Parliament in the Taif Agreement, supported by the Arab League, and is given a major share of the credit for finally bringing the civil war to an end in October 1990.44 In the ensuing fifteen years, Damascus and Beirut justified Syria's continued military presence in Lebanon by citing the continued weakness of a Lebanese armed forces faced with both internal and external security threats, and the agreement with the Lebanese Government to implement all of the constitutional reforms in the Taif Agreement.45 The United States and France rejected Syrian reasoning that they were in Lebanon by the consent of the Lebanese government, claiming that the latter had been co-opted and that in fact Lebanon's Government was a Syrian puppet.46 The 2004 amendments to the constitution that would have extended the pro-Syrian president’s term-limit are further evidence of Syrian influence over Lebanon’s government. Syria was charged with pressure the National Assembly to amend the constitution, and many of the Lebanese rejected it, saying that it was considered as contradictive to the constitution and its principles.47 Pressure against Syria increased exponentially after Hariri’s assassination and the full extent of their power in Lebanon was understood.48

Lebanon’s sovereignty issues do not end there. From the beginning of the civil war, Hezbollah has been a rogue actor, subverting government policy and engaging in hostilities with Israel. Funded and supported predominantly by Iran,49 Hezbollah seeks to lay down the bases of a Muslim state, which plays a central role in the world.50 Hezbollah has been kept out of politics by the relatively pro-Western forces of the Lebanese government, but that has not stopped their paramilitary wing from undermining the government’s monopoly over the use of force. Rocket attacks into Israeli territory sparked the 34-day 2006 Lebanon War despite the government’s attempts to avoid conflict.51 In recent elections, Hezbollah’s political wing has actually gained a considerable voice in the parliament.

Lebanon’s is a long and complex story wrought with conflict and competing groups. As such it should come as little surprise that this bloody history birthed a political system that strives to maintain peace and equilibrium among those in conflict. The effectiveness of this system is analyzed in next section.