Lebanon in dire need of reform: Is the country ready for a new social contract?
Opinion analysis by Myriam Akiki, Staff Writer
September 9th, 2021
Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio
Click here to listen to the full audio version for this article
The social contract has always been the most popular theory regarding the birth of the state. It explains that society is based on a shared agreement between the various societal groups and the state that establishes both moral and political rules on behavior, settling their rights and obligations towards each other.
In other words, the social contract is an agreement between the people and their ruler - in today’s context, their government - where the people agree to give power to the government and expect it to protect their rights in return.
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau all had their share in explaining the social contract in their own way. For Hobbes, individuals were born into a state of nature characterized by constant fighting, violence and war. And so, said-individuals agreed to concede their rights to a ruler and give them absolute power. For Locke, the state of nature was rather a state of equality between individuals, where they agreed with the ruler to concede part of their rights in order to receive protection and preservation of their freedom in return. As for Rousseau, the state of nature was a state of freedom and independence where individuals agreed with one another to concede their own rights in order to preserve the rights and freedom of the society as a whole. These three interpretations may vary in different regards, but they have one thing in common: believing in the right to freedom.
And so, the question is this: why should we bring all of this up? If you think the theory is complex, its application in Lebanon is even more so. Indeed, the country’s current situation raises many questions regarding the status of its social contract.
Lebanon’s original social contract may be the one agreed upon between the French and the Lebanese rulers at the time of the founding of the State of Lebanon, when the sectarian division in the political system was institutionalized. This political system eventually led the country into a civil war which ended by resetting the same political system with the Taif Agreement in 1989 that has been governing the Lebanese people ever since. It is important to note that the Taif Agreement was never wholly implemented, but rather the political powers in the country chose what to implement and ignored what did not suit their interests.
In both instances, at the initial establishment of the State of Lebanon and at the negotiation of the Taif Agreement, it was the ruling class falling in line with the will of external parties, who can have influence on the social contract but ultimately, the main actors should be the State and the society. In both cases, the Lebanese society didn’t have a say in the matter. It acquiesced to the political will, hoping it would lead to some sort of peace.
All of this leads to one question: did Lebanon ever really have a social contract?
As per agreement, the State should offer its people protection (which is dependent on state authority), provision (which is dependent on state capacity) and participation in political decision making (which generates state legitimacy). In return, the people should recognize the legitimacy of the State and fulfill their obligations towards it (paying taxes, enrolling in military or civil service, etc.).
Today, the country has descended into chaos, amid a pandemic, an economic collapse and a shortage of fuel, gas, water, medicine and bread, all without any long-term solutions. With that being said, it is safe to say that the Lebanese State in itself has failed. It has long lost its authority, is in no way capable of providing for its citizens and a sizeable portion of the Lebanese people no longer consider it to be legitimate. Lebanon is in desperate need of a brand-new social contract. Any variant of the current system will only lead to history repeating itself and thus, robbing Lebanese citizens of their freedom once again.
Resetting the system only helped in delaying the collapse of the State. Looking a few years back, life in Lebanon was not so bad. It surely wasn’t comparable to life in first-world countries, but it was decent enough to some extent. However, there’s just so many times you can reset something before it is bound to break.
Therefore, where does Lebanon go from here? There may be no evident answer yet because political will is lacking, although societal will is present. A big portion of the Lebanese society has expressed its rejection of the current political system and the political leaders, but the latter still remain in power.
One might argue that they still maintain their legitimacy since they profited from the sectarian system and succeeded in forming their own social contracts with their respective supporters, furthering the division of the Lebanese society and instilling “clientelism” into the already corrupt system. However, this cycle might soon come undone as being a politician in Lebanon is no longer as profitable as it used to be. While some are still trying to line their pockets deep and others may still cling to the old system for the sake of “being in power”, they may soon reach a dead end as the current crises probably won’t end without major political reformation. And while the various political parties may sometimes call for a new social contract, there’s never a serious plan of action, which leads us to believe that these calls are nothing other than populist.
Also, looking at the current international political field, it is clear that external international actors aren’t giving as much attention to Lebanon as they used to. They promise aid but do not extend it. They also call for change in Lebanon but do not employ their means to make it happen as they would have in the past. Politicians that once had the support of specific countries are now left to their own devices. It seems like the world has also grown tired of the situation here in Lebanon, which isn’t necessarily bad as it leaves room for the voice of the citizens to be heard and for them to take action, away from unwanted interactions.
Lebanon might seem paralyzed right now and there might not be a clear idea of what the new system should be, but this shouldn’t be an obstacle in the way of complete reform. Rather, it should be an incentive to discuss and push towards this new social contract, one that lives up to the expectations of Lebanese citizens today. In the past, they had never thought that the civil war would end, but it did. They had never thought that the israeli occupation would end in 2000, but it did. They had never thought that the Syrian troops would leave the Lebanese soil in 2005, but they did. And so, why should agreeing on a new social contract not happen?
References: