Learning from Lebanon

Since October 17th, mass protests have taken Lebanon by storm in a manner that is unprecedented. These protests have been largely inclusive, and they are emblematic of the tenacity of the Lebanese people. Across cities, towns, and villages, citizens are taking to the streets to demand that their leaders step down. Rampant corruption perpetuated by a broken political system lies at the root of Lebanon’s problems, but the immediate impetus for the protests was a series of events that occurred in close proximity to each other: energy problems, a dollar shortage, an incompetently handled forest fire, and the final straw –– a WhatsApp tax, all against the backdrop of a financial crisis compounded by burgeoning government debt.

These recent events are the most recent manifestation of Lebanon’s enduring crisis. Lebanon has been suffering through a trash crisis since 2015, as landfills have been overflowing onto the streets and trash has barely been collected. A standoff in Parliament left the country without an acting president from May 2014 to October 2016. Power outages are the only consistent feature of Lebanese infrastructure. And, to address the elephant in the room: sectarianism continues to plague the country. In fact, it is this unprecedented absence of sectarianism that has made the current protests significant. As one Economist article puts it, perhaps Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s only accomplishment is that “he has united a factious country in disgust.”

Sectarianism —religiously rooted discrimination— constitutes an inalienable part of Lebanese history and permeates the country’s politics. Lebanon has been regarded as a “multiconfessional” state defined by the allocation of power among rigidly defined religious groups since long before independence from France. The National Pact, an unwritten agreement which dictates that the president must be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of parliament a Shi’a Muslim, came into play at Lebanon’s 1943 declaration of independence. Despite officially recognizing eighteen different religious sects, Lebanon spent fifteen years of its history torn by protracted civil war between Maronite, Sunni, Shi’a, Alawi, Druze, and secular local actors, in addition to regional and international powers. Even the power-sharing agreement that brought the civil war to an end reinforced sectarian notions: the 1989 Taif Accords further institutionalized the role of sectarianism in government.

It is this stubborn, deeply ingrained sectarianism that complicates prospects of change. Even toppling Hariri’s government cannot rectify this reality. This notion does not serve to absolve the politicians, many of whom are warlords that have profited from sectarianism. It is merely to say that protestors face the challenge of a political system that is deeply entrenched. As the Arab Spring has shown, enacting substantive and meaningful change in any country is difficult. In Lebanon, it can be likened to walking on eggshells: the precarious question of who will fill the power vacuum that will exist if the government is toppled is worrisome. Dismantling a fragile political system in a country like Lebanon must therefore be gradual and involve substantive, structural change. The shift away from a self-serving, corrupt government to a progressive, functional one cannot occur overnight.

Yet, we must be careful not to undermine the mettle of the Lebanese people, who have carried their country’s flag above their many sectarian banners. That the protests have remained leaderless is perhaps their greatest strength. Irrespective of the means by which change can or should be enacted, the protesters have done enough by acknowledging that there is no longer room for the status quo to persist and by simply putting pressure on the current regime, both of which prompted Prime Minister Hariri’s resignation. Even more so, the demonstrations have created a long overdue sense of cultural intimacy, uniting the fractious nation. Indeed, protestors have literally transcended the divides that plagued the 2005 Cedar Revolution: they formed an actual human chain from the north to the south of the country as a symbol of unity. They are fighting a cause that is decidedly non-sectarian.  

Nearly three weeks since they ignited, it is imperative that the Lebanese protests do not lose momentum. Sustainable change requires patience and persistence. Perhaps there is a middle ground to be found between diving headfirst into the deep waters of the unknown and remaining in the muddy shallows of the current system. Let Lebanon be the first nation in the Levant to prove it can be done.

Source: CNN, Alaa Elassar