Title: A New Equation: Lebanon’s Political System at a Potential Turning Point
A Delicate Political Calculus
A new political equation is gradually taking shape in Lebanon. While not unexpected or inherently negative, this development is likely to usher in a new phase for the country’s long-standing sectarian power-sharing agreement. The central issue remains the integration of all parties into the nation’s constitutional framework, a process that has been welcomed by various regional actors as a step toward stability.
The Proposed Path: Integration Over Confrontation
With the state’s efforts to disarm Hezbollah through force being off the table and widely deemed undesirable, a second approach is emerging. This involves offering political concessions to the Shia community in exchange for the group’s weapons. This path is framed not as a concession but as a fulfillment of the long-overdue implementation of the 1989 Taif Agreement, a foundational peace accord. Key figures, including Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, have consistently called for the accord’s full enactment.
A core tenet of this implementation would be the move away from a strictly sectarian political system, eliminating religious quotas in parliament and government—a significant constitutional reform long discussed.
Christian Concerns and the Federalism Debate
A skeptical view suggests that support for this idea is based on the assumption that Lebanon’s Christian communities, who stand to lose significant political influence, would block it. However, an increasing number of Christians are reportedly warming to the idea of federalism, which could, in theory, make them more amenable to a full Taif implementation.
Analysts note, however, that the Christian understanding of federalism often approximates a divorce from the Muslim majority, particularly from Hezbollah, whose worldview is seen as incompatible with their own. Yet, a federal system would likely keep key powers like foreign relations, defense, and trade under a central government, leaving core disagreements unresolved.
The Taif Agreement and Administrative Decentralization
The Taif Agreement itself does not mention federalism but offers a potential avenue through “administrative decentralization.” This was a key concession given to Christian leaders in exchange for reducing the powers of the presidency. However, this concession has a major flaw: administrative decentralization is meaningless without fiscal decentralization. If the central government retains ultimate financial control, local autonomy becomes an illusion. Consequently, Christian groups are now unlikely to accept a full Taif implementation without guarantees of complete administrative and financial devolution.
The Sequencing of a “Grand Deal”
While a grand deal on Hezbollah’s weapons may not be imminent, the potential outlines of such an agreement are becoming clearer. A critical factor for success would be the sequencing of events. A simultaneous process of disarmament and constitutional negotiations is seen as highly unlikely to succeed. For any political reform to be credible, Hezbollah’s disarmament would logically need to precede comprehensive constitutional changes. An armed party cannot equitably participate in reshaping the political landscape.
Regional Dimensions and Strategic Recalculations
A key factor in any potential deal is the stance of the Islamic Republic of Iran. While some believe Iran would never relinquish Hezbollah’s arsenal, regional strategic shifts may prompt a recalculation. With the “Axis of Resistance” facing new realities, securing the political influence of Lebanon’s Shia community through constitutional means, rather than solely through military assets, could be viewed as a more sustainable long-term strategy.
A System in Need of Fundamental Repair
Although a grand political deal would be widely welcomed, there are no guarantees it would produce a better outcome than the current, deeply dysfunctional system. It could merely be a patch that leaves the core ailments of the sectarian system intact. For instance, a decentralized system that does not force sectarian leaders to compromise with rivals could simply create smaller, concentrated autocratic powers.
This has led some to ask whether the wiser course is not just to implement the Taif Agreement, but to use it as a foundation for a newly constructed constitutional order that incorporates the lessons of the past 35 years. Whatever path is chosen, the inextricable link between Hezbollah’s disarmament and broader constitutional reform appears inevitable. One cannot happen without the other.