circles

How We Got Here

An overview of the most significant structural defects in the Lebanese system that led us to the collapse


A Sectarian System Based On A Sham Social Contract

arrow

A System Pawned To Foreigners

arrow

A System Based On A Rentier Economy

arrow

A Sectarian System Based On Clientelism & Corruption

arrow

A System Based On Immunity And Impunity

arrow

A System That Dominated The Educational Sector

arrow

A System Based On Selective Development

arrow

A System Based On The Weakness Of The State And The Power Of Statelets

arrow

“Lebanon is not a nation but a group of statelets” is a saying that has, for ages, been repeated by Lebanese men and women throughout the country. It is a byproduct of the Lebanese political system, which has always given priority to sectarian affiliations at the expense of an inclusive national identity. Since before the establishment of the state of Greater Lebanon, sects were the main component of power within feudal alliances that control land and monopolize methods of production. This coalition of feudalism and sects held the reins of power with the cooperation and support of both regional and international powers, thus this implicit governance equation remained intact well after its components agreed on an insincere social contract in accordance with the 1926 constitution. This sectarian arrangement continued despite several amendments to the mock social contract, from the post-independence National Pact of 1943, to the Taif accord in 1990, leading up to the Doha agreement in 2008, which established consensual democracy between sects as the basic principle of governance in the country. None of the amendments succeeded in developing an actual social contract, because no matter who the players are or what constitutions are in place, the rules of the game have never changed. 

Throughout the years, our social contract has evolved and was modified; the aim, however, was never to establish a new actuality that pulls the country out of the cycle of conflicts between sects, in order to rebuild relations between the ruler and the ruled on the basis of citizenship and equality before the law. Rather, amendments merely reflected the evolutions of the balance of power between sects, where the victor increased its privileges at the expense of the defeated following cycles of conflicts and civil wars. Our system was and stays resistant to change and progress, regardless of whether the basic charters differed or if amendments were made to the social contract. That is because the constitution and the constitutional institutions emanating from it were never centers of governance and decision-making, but simply tools for implementing the decisions of sects and their leaders. From the constitution established in 1926, to the Taif accord, to the Doha agreement, our social contract has been nothing but pictorial. Perhaps the greatest example in our modern history of the utter failure of the constitution and its institutions is what is known as the “dialogue table”. Leaders of the parties representing the major sects have gathered around it so that their deliberations and decisions become the supreme and only law for the country, one that transcends the constitution and voids the constitutional institutions of any actual value in decision-making or actual governance.

A Sectarian System Based On A Sham Social Contract

arrow

A System Pawned To Foreigners

arrow

A System Based On A Rentier Economy

arrow

A Sectarian System Based On Clientelism & Corruption

arrow

A System Based On Immunity And Impunity

arrow

A System That Dominated The Educational Sector

arrow

A System Based On Selective Development

arrow

A System Based On The Weakness Of The State And The Power Of Statelets

arrow

image

How We Got Here


image

How We Got Here