Kevork Yacoubian
Lebanon is a consociational democracy, a system that Arend Lijphart defines as a power-sharing model specific to a given state or society based on ethnic, religious, or linguistic considerations. In these circumstances, a consociational democracy can help maintain stability in diverse and polarized societies through policies such as grand coalitions, mutual veto, proportionality in elections, and segmental autonomy through decentralization.
Yet in Lebanon’s case, consociationalism has plagued the political system due to sectarian tension and the inability to form consensus around policies. Within this system, a social-political and militant group, Hezbollah, grew into prominence starting in 1982. A 1985 open letter articulates the worldview of Hezbollah as an entity opposing Zionism and its supporters. Locally, it undertook an anti-sectarian stance and called for greater consensus within the state, moving away from the Maronite-dominated system. Hezbollah became a complex apparatus of numerous intertwined bodies and multilevel militant structures. Its governance was delegated to the Shura Council, which elects the Secretary-General and oversees various entities like the Executive and Jihad Councils responsible for administrative and military tasks.
The Taef Agreement that ended the civil war became the new framework upon which the consociational system of Lebanon took shape, starting in the early 1990s. Yet the document was never fully implemented as it stipulated the disarmament of all militia groups. Hezbollah argued that it was not a militia but a resistance group against Israel and kept its weapons through foreign support and intervention by Syria and Iran.
No comments:
Post a Comment