One of the key flaws in the Lebanese political system, alongside its deeply rooted sectarian and religious divisions that have obstructed any real progress toward equality among its citizens, is the absence of constitutional, political, and judicial accountability in all its forms.
This critical weakness traps the political process in a vicious cycle, allowing the political class to reproduce itself, thus preventing meaningful change. Even when breakthroughs occur, they remain incapable of altering political equations.
This crisis, rooted in the lack of accountability, is compounded by the “consensual” nature of Lebanon’s fragile democracy. This consensus-driven approach has made political decision-making increasingly difficult and complex, requiring broad national agreement even on the simplest matters. (One glaring example of this dysfunction is the suspension of forest ranger appointments due to an imbalance in sectarian representation among candidates.)
While the consensual nature of Lebanese politics has historically prevented any single group or coalition from monopolizing power, the excessive and distorted application of this principle—blocking decisions rather than contributing to their formation—has pushed Lebanon into a series of largely artificial and avoidable crises. These crises are solvable if political will exists among the country’s key players.
One of the most significant examples of this deadlock is the vacancy in the Lebanese presidency since October 31, 2022, following parliament’s failure to elect a successor to former president Michel Aoun within the constitutional timeframe. For months, debate shifted from electing a president to whether dialogue should precede the election itself. Meanwhile, as time passes, the country remains without a head of state, as some insist on a blind adherence to the constitution, while others act as though it doesn’t exist.
Nothing is more dangerous than tampering with the core pacts that hold a nation together. Adherence to a constitution requires a deep-rooted political and constitutional culture, one that respects the rule of law as a fundamental value. Unfortunately, in recent decades, Lebanon’s political landscape has deteriorated. The path forward lies in raising awareness, allowing the Lebanese to exercise their freedoms with greater rationality, responsibility, and objectivity.
This freedom, Lebanon’s defining feature, remains a beacon of hope amid the bleak authoritarianism dominating the region, where democracy has historically failed to take root and dictatorships have flourished. However, maintaining this atmosphere of freedom and stability in Lebanon is not only a Lebanese interest but also a regional one. Tampering with it will have severe and far-reaching consequences for the entire region, with the costs of preserving stability being far lower than the costs of an explosion.
Ultimately, the responsibility for resolving this crisis lies with the Lebanese themselves. The path out of this impasse must be a Lebanese initiative. The time has come for the country to reach political maturity, a long-overdue step whose delay continues to generate crisis after crisis, destabilizing the nation.
While Lebanon’s civil war (1975-1990) ended with the country maintaining its territorial integrity, it would be a mistake to assume that a future conflict would yield the same result. The nature of the conflict and the identity of the warring parties may differ, but with the growing voices calling for division and fragmentation, the risks are higher than ever.
Lebanon deserves better than its current state or the dangerous path it is on. Without a shift towards reconciliation, stability, and civil peace, the country risks further deterioration.
