Analysis by Joelle El Sheikh, Staff Writer and Tala Karkanawi, Staff Writer

January 19th, 2021

Lebanon’s political history is one filled with national, international, and regional agreements, both written and unwritten, that aim to organize the affairs of a country as geopolitically important as Lebanon. Through reviewing historic documents, from the Lebanese constitution to the Taif Agreement and the unwritten National Pact, patterns, as well as contradictions, emerge. 

“Every Lebanese shall be the right to hold public office, no preference shall be made except on the basis of merit and competence, according to the conditions established by law. A special statute shall guarantee the rights of civil service in the departments to which they belong.” Article 12 of the Lebanese constitution. 

Through equating all Lebanese before the law, Article 7 of the constitution gives citizens equal right, and more importantly, equal opportunity, to serve in public office, regardless of religion or sect. This rigid law is re-iterated in the 1989 Taif Agreement, 

“Abolishing political sectarianism is a fundamental national objective.” Taif Agreement, Section II, Part G. 

While today’s reality is a classic breach of both these official and historic documents, this reality did not spring out from nowhere. In fact, the unwritten National Pact of 1943 clearly divides public office unequally amongst Lebanese citizens. In other words:

“The President of the Republic and the Commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces always be Maronite Catholic. 

The Prime Minister of the Republic always be a Sunni Muslim. The Speaker of the Parliament always be a Shia Muslim. 

The Deputy Speaker of the Parliament and the Deputy Prime Minister always be Greek Orthodox Christian. 

The Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces always be a Druze.” National Pact (unwritten) 

The sectarian divide in Lebanon today is deeper, stronger, and more destructive. Unfortunately, out of all three documents, the unwritten one prevailed, despite the clear contradiction it holds with other documents. Lebanese are not equal, nor do they share equal opportunities. The cases to prove such claims are all around us, starting from the lack of a merit-based system to the prevalence of nepotism and favoritism when it comes to public office. Sectarianism is far from the only contradiction present between our constitution and/or Taif Agreement and our reality. It is also found in the realms of freedom of expression, nepotism, and sovereignty. 

Nepotism and Corruption – the disappearance of democracy   

Article 12 (see above) states the rights of the Lebanese citizens when it comes to holding a position at a public office, yet we still hear the same public officers and political figures over and over again. It goes back to the corrupted roots the governmental officials have built and given to their successors (usually their children) as well. Nepotism is one of the biggest issues Lebanon faces in politics. The highest level of governmental positions and elite families pass their power and role to their relatives and children. 

For example, Walid Jumblatt and Amine Gemayel were succeeded by their sons as the leaders of the Phalange and the Progressive Socialist Parties respectively. In addition, the president Michel Aoun gave his son in law, Gebran Bassil the presidency of the Free Patriotic movement, with a hope of passing down the presidency to him as well. After the assassination of Rafik el Hariri, he was succeeded by his son, Saad El Hariri. 

It does not depend on ‘who actually deserves this position’, rather it depends on ‘which son will I give my position to?’

Lebanon went through a revolution in October 2019 with the hope of reformulating the entire political structure and removing corrupted officials from their positions. However, that was not achieved. What did change is the fact that most citizens became more politically aware of the widespread corruption, abuse of power, and theft.  

For civil protests and revolutions to succeed, the Lebanese people must ruminate and start working using post-nepotism, corruption and gridlock options. New mechanisms need to be adapted, adhering to the constitution and realizing that their rights are stolen away from them. 

Freedom of Expression: 

Protected by Article 13 of the Lebanese Constitution as well as Part I (C) of the Taif Agreement, freedom of expression has been a long-standing foundational principle of Lebanese politics and society. The true test of freedom of expression in any nation is in the event of protests, revolutions, political/economic crises, and times of turmoil. After the October 17 uprisings of 2019 took place, freedom of expression faced the ultimate test, and to some extent, failed. According to Amnesty International, “Since the 17 October 2019 protest movement, Lebanon’s security and military agencies have summoned, interrogated and intimidated dozens of individuals in reaction to social media posts criticizing the authorities.”[1] Human Rights Watch also reports that at least 29 people for interrogation concerning free speech charges, including insult and defamation, between October 17, 2019 and March 6, 2020.”[2]

A classic proving example that the real problem lies not within the law, i.e. the constitution or the Taif, but rather with its implementation, or even more specifically, with overseeing its implementation by courts. Some scholars believe that the interpretation of the law is also to blame. 

“The problem is the interpretation of the law […] the same articles can be interpreted in a very liberal and open way and also in a very restrictive and oppressive way. This, unfortunately, is the current situation."[3] Ayman Mhanna, the Executive Director of media freedom watchdog the Samir Kassir Foundation. Regardless of where the root of the problem lies, without any real accountability for such breaches, Lebanese citizens remain victims of illegal practices by their own elected officials. 

Thus, it remains crucial for the Lebanese state to re-instate the core principles of our constitution through coming up with a strategy to combat all actions that go against it. Citizens who express their opinions, including their criticism, shall not be interrogated or arrested. Officials often try to justify such arrests through claiming that activists/citizens who voiced their concerns are “threatening national security”. Such excuses are simply a tool to justify their illegal actions. At the end of the day, national insecurity does not come from an opinion or a tweet, but rather from a government incapable of ensuring the safety of its citizens. 

Lebanon’s Sovereignty, but is it really sovereign?

Lebanon’s Constitution: Preamble 

A) Lebanon is a sovereign, free, and independent country. It is a final homeland for all its

citizens. It is unified in its territory, people, and institutions within the boundaries defined

in this constitution and recognized internationally. 

The Lebanese constitution is introduced by the country being a sovereign, free, and an independent country. However, that statement is widely controversial in today’s geopolitical scene. Lebanon has had its fair share of fragile governments, plenty of international and foreign interference, and leaky borders. Some political analysts have stated that Lebanon’s sovereignty is ‘fundamentally weak’. The country is crumbling with political, economic, and social issues with plenty of foreign economic and political sanctions. With an incapable and weak government in control, the Lebanese lira losing its value, and the COVID-19 situation, Lebanon is witnessing its downfall. It is now stuck between the reality of gruesomely corrupt Lebanese leaders hindering change and the pound of financial duress by foreign powers.

The reason why Lebanese sovereignty is debatable is due to the fact that the government, alongside the citizens, have increasingly relied on western and foreign intervention and aid to remove the country out of the black hole they have thrown themselves into, when they should have worked to avoid it. With an Iranian backed militia in control, and a hope for fresh dollars and a Saudi-American financial aid to come and rescue the day, the term ‘sovereignty’ has lost a big portion of its core foundation. The presence of Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed militia, creates another set of challenges both on the political and military level. With the United States and Saudi Arabia labeling Hezbollah as a ‘terrorist organization’ and its participation in the decision-making process (Lebanese parliament), Lebanon, once again, find itself torn between two very different paths.

Due to its strategic and geopolitical location, Lebanon is caught between two major powers: Iran and the Saudi-American ally. Some argue that neutrality is an option, but others believe it is out of the question. As you can see, the sectarian divide is translated into a political one. With part of the Lebanese people preferring an alliance with the West, the other reject it completely, on the grounds that it may lead to a path of normalization with israel. The second choice would be going towards the ‘East’. However, it’s not quite that simple. Lebanon is a country with multiple countries in itself, goes between the Gulf and the US, to Iran and Syria, with the EU sprinkled in between. Turning themselves against the West would mean turning themselves against any economic, political or social safety. This is where the Lebanese government comes into place. Every single political figure belongs to a certain sect, who belongs to a certain religion, who possibly belongs to a certain country as well. With some Shiite Muslims being affiliated with Hezbollah, which is affiliated with Iran, it is hard to remove Iranian influence. This applies as well to some Sunni Muslims who are affiliated with the Hariri family, who are also Saudi Arabians, it is hard to remove Saudi and their allies’ influence from Lebanon. So is the case with some Maronite Christians and French influence. 

However, there is a third option: Lebanon first. Why should we care more about our allies than ourselves? If we don’t look out for our best interests, no one will, let alone Iran or the United States or any other foreign country. Choosing between the West and the East is not the real issue; the real issue is knowing how to create a political middle ground that can prioritize the Lebanese people. 

Lebanon has had a sovereignty shortage when it comes to international and foreign powers and its way of ruling. The country is facing the second challenge of restoring both amidst inauspicious conditions. The road to sovereignty will play a tough role in figuring out which foreign direction will Lebanon take. Knowing its economic restrictions, their position globally, and financial threats from the US, a new strategy has to be adopted consisting of positive neutrality. 

Lebanon today lacks many basic elements that make a state. However, the one thing it does not lack is a strong and capable constitution. A constitution that, if implemented to the bone, is enough to build a foundation based on merit, trust, and mutual respect. This foundation, however, is not solely dependent on officials and policy-makers, but rather on the people themselves. The Lebanese have to see each other as equals, rather than rivals, as united, rather than divided, and as Lebanese, above any and everything else. Without them, a nation may not rise, no matter how strong our Phoenix may be.

[1] “Stop the Crackdown on Freedom of Expression in Lebanon”, Amnesty International, https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved/take-action/lebanon-freedom-of-expression/

[2] “Lebanon: Spate of Free Speech Prosecutions”, Human Rights Watch, https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/03/12/lebanon-spate-free-speech-prosecutions

[3] Lauren Lewis, “Freedom of Expression is under threat in Lebanon”, Qtd in Middle East Monitor, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200704-freedom-of-expression-is-under-threat-in-lebanon/