Sectarianism in the Lebanese Political System / الصيغة الطائفية في النظام السياسي اللبناني

The political system is a group of legislated actions and behaviors which play an important role in regulating the work of institutions and different groups found in a society through legal means. Scholars have defined it as statutory regulations and rules a State sets upon the nation that it governs, in order to achieve security and welfare internally and externally, therefore attaining the nation's top interests.

The importance of the political system is highlighted by its key role in defining the dimensions of the society, shaping the energies of individuals to serve society, aiding in the integration and adjustment of individuals with each other in the society in order to sustain public interest, and reflecting legitimacy on individuals’ lives through applying rules of law and general policy which ensure justice and equality between them.

This political system could derail from its true course if it intercrosses with sectarianism – just like what happened in Lebanon, where sectarianism left its footprint in every administrative or political practice.

From here stems the following question: How is sectarianism evidential in the Lebanese political system?

In this article we are going to address this topic through:

     i.         The Roots of Lebanese Sectarianism

   ii.         Characteristics of the Lebanese Political System

I. The Roots of Lebanese Sectarianism

Lebanon has known many eras throughout history that were the cornerstone of its political system, from the Ma’an Dynasty in 1516 to the Ottoman rule and then to the direct French rule, until it gained independence in 1943 from the French mandate. But the most notable eras that were the nuclei of Lebanese sectarianism, which we will talk about in this section, are the eras of the Kaymakam (District Commissioner) and the Mutasarrifate.

Sectarianism in the Era of the Kaymakam (District Commissioner)

After the defeat of the Egyptians in Syria and Lebanon and the return of Ottoman rule, sectarianism started appearing (Maronite - Druze) in Lebanon for different reasons that led to shifting from Emirate rule to Ottoman direct rule and to destroying the independence of Mount Lebanon. And then in 1842, the chief of the Ottoman Government, the so-called Ottoman Sublime Porte, agreed with the major European countries on dividing Mount Lebanon into two regions: A Druze provincial district of Druze majority, governed by a Dirzi Kaymakam, and a Maronite provincial district of Maronite majority, governed by a Maronite Kaymakam. This shows the sectarian and regional division that was in Lebanon, of which its effects remain until today.

After the renewed sectarian problems in Mount Lebanon, the intensification of the European intervention in Lebanese affairs, and the competition between Europeans and Ottomans on stirring up strife in Lebanon, the Ottoman Sultanate sent its foreign minister, “Chakib Efendi'', who suggested a solution that was later known as the “Chakib Efendi'' system. This system provides for the establishment of governing Councils for each provincial district from their religious sects, that helps the Kaymakam in governing the region, and in solving the problems between the citizens.

Here, we observe the sectarian representation in the governing Councils that is today an essential condition when distributing governmental and parliamentary positions in our current Lebanese Constitution.

This system, however, continued until 1860, and failed because the senior guardians continued to spread hatred and hostility between sects.

Sectarianism in the Era of the Mutasarrifate

The outbreak of the bloody events in 1860 had triggered the intervention of foreign armies and fleets, and the birth of “Tanios Chahine” revolution that had sparked in the Christian provincial district against feudalism, and which couldn’t prevail because it wasn’t being able to extend to the Druze provincial district. Then it quickly turned into a sectarian strife which was the reason of the ending of the system of Kaymakam.

The Sultanate then agreed with the major European countries on what was known as the political system of Mount  Lebanon, the system of Mutasarrifate, or the 1861 protocol,  which states essentially the following: to grant Lebanon internal independence, to link its government with the Sublime Porte, to be governed by a Christian Mutasarrif of the Sultanate, to abolish sectorization and make all Lebanese people equal before the law, and most importantly, to establish an elected 12-member governing Council representing all the sects and helping the Mutasarrif governing the Mount of Lebanon, and this Council was known as the Representative Council.

Here, we observe the sectarian distribution in the councils that is still authorized in the Lebanese Parliament.  

The Mutasarrifate era was marked by the increased European intervention in local affairs and the consolidation of the sectarian system, despite the emergence of the dawn of the cultural Arabic renaissance during this period and the contribution of Lebanese intellectuals, writers and poets to the prosperity of this renaissance and to urge the Arab to show solidarity in order to liberate the country from the “Ottoman yoke”.

With the beginning of World War I in 1914, the Ottoman government took the opportunity to topple the Mutasarrifate regime through ending Lebanon’s autonomy and subjecting it to authoritarian military rule, which resulted in the exile of a large number of Lebanese leaders and the execution of some of them. The Christian Mutasarrif was also removed, and the Representative Council dissolved.

We observe that sectarianism has existed since before the end of Ottoman rule, French Mandate, and Independence, and that sectarian distribution in representative councils or administrative centers is not new to our political system but it is the juxtaposition of eras and systems that it had known throughout history.

 II.         Characteristics of the Lebanese Political System

The Lebanese Constitution is a set of multiple-sourced rules. On the one hand, it adopts general democratic principles derived from the international democratic legacy. On the other hand, it adheres to a sectarian system that embodies its roots in the history of the Lebanese entity, but which often contradicts the pillars of democracy. Since the enactment of the Constitution, sectarianism was considered a temporary rule to be abstained, but it took roots and became permanent. The most important characteristics of the Lebanese political system, that we will discuss in this section, is that of it being a sectarian and polyarchy system.

Lebanese Sectarian System

Sectarianism in the region is a legacy whose roots go back to the time of the Ottoman Empire. It was exploited by leaders and governors to control the country and used by colonists to stir up strife and flood the region with grudges and rivalries. The civil strife that went up in 1840 was the perfect example for the prevalence of sectarianism and the fighting and killing between people of the same country. Due to this strife, the system of Mutasarrifate was established in Mount Lebanon, along with a governing Council on sectarian bases. So, when the Lebanese government was born in 1920, sectarianism had become a political pillar of governance; and in 1929, the Constitution inculcated it after laws had been passed and traditions had been consolidated, which established the principle of “political sectarianism” in article No. 95 temporarily. But to seek justice and reconciliation, the temporary became permanent through the electoral law which divides seats according to sects and through the known pact or custom of distributing the three presidential seats.

With the promulgation of the constitutional amendments, Article No. 95 was amended and entrusted to the council, which is elected on basis of equality between Muslims and Christians, to adopt the appropriate measurements to abolish political sectarianism, in accordance with a step-by-step plan. But the article found that it is better, in the transitional period, to represent sects in a fair manner when forming the ministry and to abolish sectarian representation and to adopt adequacy in public jobs, the judiciary, military and security institutions, and public and mixed institutions, except jobs of Category I and their equivalence where they are divided equally between Christians and Muslims.

And all that, means that the disease still exists…

Lebanon’s Polyarchy System

The researchers who had the opportunity to study the Lebanese political experience, and the politicians who participated in governance, all agreed that Lebanon was/is suffering from a systemic crisis. Many tried to establish an exhaustive description or classification of the Lebanese system, but they didn’t succeed. So, they resorted to some modern theories which deal with interwoven, complex and multi-group societies, and several balanced report and resolution centers. Out of those theories, is the well-known theory in the social sciences, the polyarchy theory, that implies multiple and balanced power centers. This system can be found in both developed and underdeveloped societies.

According to this system, we can explain the characteristics of the Lebanese system, understand the structure on which the Lebanese political society is based, and know the methods used to maintain its prevailing balance. In the polyarchy system, neither the individual nor the society play any major role, because only groups (i.e., the sects in Lebanon)dominate and control the system. That's why the Lebanese citizen as an individual stays out of the political and social stage, and cohesion is absent in the society, because each sect considers itself as a self-contained community that is linked to other sect communities only by tenuous ties imposed by the idea of continuing to coexist with unstable private interests.

As a result, political life is transformed into operations of lies, pressure, fighting, and hypocrisy practiced by sectarian groups to gain some profits, even if it leads, at times, to bloodshed battles at some point where the individual becomes a tool to serve the goals of his group and as a result, his opinions will vanish and his personality will fade, and the government is then transformed into a tool working for the leaders of the groups, or into a farm that they share. In the end, the government and its institutions are replaced by the different groups, and the sectarian leaders become the sole reference for anyone in need of service or employment.

The polyarchy system helps us understand the Lebanese system, which depends on a formula that relies on an accurate balancing between different powers and divergent decision centers. All these powers and centers are generally obliged, in order not to disturb the balance, to follow the method of intermittent understanding which sometimes includes a tendency to maneuver or to an intense rivalry that may end with the use of armed force. This balance is characterized by the fact that it does not allow one of the groups to permanently impose itself on the others. The reason is that it does not have (or it is not allowed to have) the power that allows it to take over the authority. That's why the agreement, that is tainted with hypocrisy, stays the inevitable formula to maintain the coexistence between these groups.

In order to ensure balance, the idea of a home country vanishes, the idea of a state fades, the idea of public interest gets lost, and the country becomes a racetrack for private interests led by the sectarian groups' leaders.

Therefore, we've clarified how the sectarian formula of the Lebanese political system is manifested.

In conclusion, it's clear for us that the sectarianism in the Lebanese political system, especially in the parliament and public jobs dates back to pre-mandate and independence. Lebanon is a country governed by partisan groups that put their personal interests above the interests of the nation, and it is based upon the delicate balance between those different forces and their divergent decision-making centers. It became a racetrack for the leaders’ interests which led to the absence of the cohesive and united national society and to the rise of doctrinal states in the same country which are related to each other with flimsy bonds that impose the idea of continuity and personal interests. Hence, the following problem arises: Do the legislature and executive authorities not bear the responsibility of expanding the sectarianism in Lebanon?

‍

Reference: The Constitutional Law and the Political System, Dr. Mohamad Majzoub

______________________________________________________________________________________________