Lebanon’s past reflects a delicate sectarian equilibrium, formally embedded in the 1943 National Pact, an unwritten understanding aimed at dividing authority among the country’s religious communities. This arrangement, constructed to guarantee representation, ultimately planted the conditions for discord, playing a role in the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990). The Taif Agreement (1989) attempted to correct foundational flaws within this system, yet doubts persist over its ability to sustain long-term stability.
The National Pact: A Structure for Sectarian Rule
The National Pact, designed at Lebanon’s independence, codified a rigid confessional power-sharing formula: the presidency was assigned to a Maronite Christian, the premiership to a Sunni Muslim, and the parliamentary speakership to a Shia Muslim. Legislative seats followed a 6:5 Christian-to-Muslim ratio, based on a disputed 1932 census. Although presented as a way to balance competing interests, this primer will argue that by embedding sectarian identity into governance, the National Pact obstructed the development of a unified state. Political authority remained concentrated within sectarian factions, where leaders served as representatives of religious constituencies rather than the nation as a whole. This arrangement turned governance into a contest for resources, as factions competed to secure advantages for their respective communities. The resulting fragmentation of authority weakened institutions, leaving the country vulnerable to external manipulation and internal unrest.
Path to Armed Conflict
As demographic and political realities shifted, the rigid structures imposed by the National Pact failed to adapt, particularly exacerbating frustrations among Shia groups that remained underrepresented. The arrival of Palestinian refugees after 1948 complicated sectarian alignments further, intensifying political fault lines. The surge of Pan-Arab nationalism in the 1950s and 1960s widened divisions, with many Lebanese Muslims endorsing regional unity while Christian leaders sought stronger Western alliances.
By the 1970s, the country had become a focal point for external conflicts, particularly the Arab-Israeli confrontation. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) heightened sectarian hostility, as Christian militias clashed with Palestinian and Muslim factions. The confessional model, already under strain from demographic shifts and economic disparities, proved incapable of managing the mounting tensions. As trust in state institutions eroded and political compromises failed, these unresolved grievances culminated in the outbreak of full-scale civil war in 1975, plunging the country into a prolonged and devastating conflict. A year later, Syrian troops intervened to prevent the defeat of its Maronite Christian allies. In 1982, Israel invaded, deepening turmoil, and extending its occupation of southern Lebanon. Lasting until 2000, the invasion brought widespread destruction, hardship, and prolonged instability to serve Israel’s strategic goals.
The Taif Agreement: Reform or Reconfiguration?
After fifteen years of armed conflict, the Taif Agreement was crafted to conclude hostilities and restructure political governance. Key modifications included equal legislative representation for Christians and Muslims (50:50), the transfer of executive authority from the Maronite president to the Sunni prime minister, and mandates for disarmament—unlike other factions, Hezbollah retained armed capability, undermining central authority, and reinforcing sectarian divisions.
While the agreement adjusted the sectarian framework, it failed to eliminate its influence. Instead, it restructured power-sharing mechanisms while maintaining the dominance of confessional elites. Established leaders ingrained their control through patronage networks, ensuring the persistence of plutocracy. Moreover, the legitimisation of Syrian presence under Taif prolonged foreign influence, restricting Lebanese autonomy until mass protests forced Syrian withdrawal in 2005.
Hezbollah and the Elite Cartel: Post-War Realignment
The post-war period saw Hezbollah emerge as a formidable military and political entity. Originally formed to combat Israeli occupation, the group expanded its reach, constructing parallel institutions and assuming functions typically managed by the state. Hezbollah’s entrenchment has complicated Lebanon’s stability, with its alignment with Iran provoking tensions both domestically and internationally.
Simultaneously, the country’s economic sphere fell under the control of a narrow class of sectarian magnates who leveraged political connections for financial gain. Figures such as Rafik Hariri steered post-war reconstruction with foreign capital, yet policies prioritised elite enrichment over national economic health, saddling Lebanon with unmanageable debt. The intersection of wealth and political power cemented a clientelist order where state resources were redirected toward maintaining sectarian patronage rather than serving collective welfare.
Cedar Revolution: A Push for Sovereignty
In 2005, the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri sparked a wave of protests as thousands rallied against Syria’s grip on Lebanon. Crowds surged through the streets, voices merging across sectarian lines, pressing for accountability. Pressure from abroad, alongside growing turmoil at home, compelled Syria to pull its forces, altering Lebanon’s political direction. The moment briefly aligned rival factions, yet divisions quickly resurfaced, stalling meaningful change.
Structural Collapse and Unstable Future
Since the post-Taif era, cycles of deadlock, economic hardship, and governance breakdowns have persisted. The 2015 waste collection crisis, rampant graft, and the financial ruin of 2019 exposed deep flaws in Lebanon’s sectarian power-sharing model. The 2020 Beirut blast laid bare institutional decay, stripping away any illusion of state competence in protecting its citizens. Hezbollah first framed its fight with Israel as resistance, but years of clashes, most recently after October 7, 2023, when its ally Hamas launched a deadly attack on southern Israel, have made it a persistent source of instability. Each escalation drags Lebanon further into crisis, placing additional strain on an already fragile state.
The 2019 protests exposed deep frustration with sectarian rule, yet the system remains intact. Attempts to challenge entrenched power fell short, as ruling elites held firm, shielding their interests from change. Governance remains stagnant, reforms elusive, and instability unbroken.
For Lebanon to achieve long-term stability, it must abandon the sectarian arrangements enshrined by the National Pact and later reinforced by Taif. A pluralistic, secular framework—one that prioritises citizenship over religious affiliation—is the only viable path forward. The question is not whether Lebanon should change, but whether it will be allowed to.
