Between entrenchment, reform and transformation: ethnicity and Lebanon's consociational democracy

ABSTRACT

Consociationalism has become a key institutional mechanism for managing conflict after civil war. Proponents argue that a period of consociational influence can contribute to the erosion of ethnic cleavages and even a society where ethnicity is depoliticized. Critics, however, are sceptical of this claim and argue that consociationalism institutionalizes ethnic identities and stymies the transition to a healthier democracy. In response, proponents outline a liberal model of consociationalism which limits the pre-determination of ethnicity in social and political structures. Yet, problematically, consociations in postwar societies often provide guarantees of ethnic representation in order to entice belligerents to abandon violence for democracy. This issue of transitioning from a corporate consociation to a more liberal form requires sustained analysis. This paper examines this conundrum by examining contemporary Lebanese consociationalism. Given that ethnicity is central to debates about revising consociationalism, via qualitative interviews with Lebanese political elites and civil society activists, the paper analyses how these subjects conceptualize ethnicity in contrasting ways which generate different approaches to consociationalism but which ultimately frustrate meaningful reform. It does this by exploring various debates to entrench, reform or transform Lebanese consociationalism.

KEYWORDS:

• consociationalism
• Lebanon
• ethnicity
• political elites
• divided societies
• peacebuilding
• ethnic conflict

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

John Nagle is a lecturer in the Institute of Conflict, Transition and Peace Research (ICTPR) at the University of Aberdeen. He would like to thank Bernie Hayes, Joanne McEvoy and the anonymous referees for valuable comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Notes

1. McCulloch, “Consociational Settlements.”

2. Andeweg, “Consociational Democracy”; McCulloch, “Consociational Settlements.”; Nagle, “Sites of Social Centrality and Segregation.”

3. McGarry and O'Leary, “Power Shared after the Deaths of Thousands”; Kerr, “Before the Revolution”; Wolff, “Liberal Consociationalism.”

4. O'Leary, “Debating Consociational Politics,”19.

5. Haddad, “Lebanon.”

6. I follow the convention of describing the main cleavages in Lebanon as “ethnic,” while recognizing that alternative descriptors have been applied to Lebanon's divisions, like “sects,” “denominations” and “spiritual families.” Le Monde Diplomatique, “Taef Agreement.” Nevertheless, a degree of consensus is apparent in using ethnicity to outline Lebanon's sectarian cleavages. For Hanf, “Lebanon is a multi-communal state comprising many ethnic and religious communities,” while Khalaf notes that the politicization of communal identities has led to the groups attaining “ethnic attributes.” Hanf, Coexistence in Wartime Lebanon, 40; Khalaf, Lebanon Adrift, 66. In utilizing “ethnicity,” none of these scholars argue that the conflict is merely reducible to primordial ethnic groups; instead, they demonstrate how these identities are constructed to serve dynamic political agendas. I agree with these analyses and use ethnicity as a designation of a particular type of political cleavage in a divided society. Yet, while such identities may well be constructed, they should be seen as social facts to the extent that they shape political and social behaviour across society.

7. Hanf, Coexistence in Wartime Lebanon.

8. See Anfara and Mertz, Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research.

9. All interviews were conducted in English. No interviews with members of Hezbollah, the main Shia party, were conducted. However, the main representatives from its political allies are included, like Amal, the Progressive Socialist Party, and the Free Patriotic Movement.

10. Van Evera, “Primordialism Lives!” 20.

11. Fearon and Laitin, “Violence and the Social Construction of Ethnic Identity,” 848.

12. Nagle and Clancy, Shared Society or Benign Apartheid?; Nagle and Clancy, “Constructing a Shared Public Identity in Ethno Nationally Divided Societies.”

13. McGarry and O'Leary, “Power Shared after the Deaths of Thousands,” 17.

14. Ibid., 26.

15. Andeweg, “Consociational Democracy,” 512.

16. Lijphart, The Politics of Accommodation, 101.

17. Coakley, “Implementing Consociation in Northern Ireland,” 145.

18. Hartzell and Hoddie, Crafting Peace.

19. Cammett and Malesky, “Power Sharing in Postconflict Societies.”

20. Lijphart, “South African Democracy.”

21. Lijphart, “Power-Sharing and Group Autonomy in the 1990s and the 21st Century.”

22. Lijphart, “South African Democracy,” 147.

23. McGarry and O'Leary, “Iraq's Constitution,” 675.

24. Ibid.

25. McGarry, “Northern Ireland,” 124.

26. Other examples of corporate consociations include Cyprus (1960), South Tyrol (1972), Burundi (1993) and Bosnia (1995). Only one contemporary consociation, according to McCulloch, can be described as corresponding to the liberal model: Iraq (2005). McCulloch, “Consociational Settlements,” 507.

27. Hanf, Coexistence in Wartime Lebanon, 589.

28. Haddad, “Lebanon.”

29. Hamdan, “The Limits of Corporate Consociation”; Kerr, “Before the Revolution”; McCulloch, “Consociational Settlements.”

30. Tonge, Comparative Peace Processes, 99.

31. Knio, “Lebanon,” 226.

32. Hamdan, “The Limits of Corporate Consociation.”

33. Albert Constanian (Political Bureau Member).

34. Ali Hamdan (Head of the Foreign Affairs Bureau).

35. Rami Reyes (Head of Communications).

36. Khalil Gebara (Head of Good Governance Unit).

37. Albert Constanian.

38. Farha, “Demographic Dilemmas,” 85.

39. Cammett, Compassionate Communalism, 61.

40. Ibid., 229.

41. Salloukh, “The Limits of Electoral Engineering in Divided Societies,” 637–8.

42. Salamey and Payne, “Parliamentary Consociationalism in Lebanon,” 463.

43. Farha, “Demographic Dilemmas.”

44. Albert Constanian.

45. Katrib, “Realities of the Orthodox Proposal.”

46. Jean-Pierre Katrib (Foreign Policy Advisor).

47. Melhem Riachi (Head of Communications).

48. Cammett, Compassionate Communalism, 229.

49. Jean-Pierre Katrib.

50. Michel De Chadarevian (Head of Political Committee).

51. Now, “The Orthodox Proposal.”

52. Katrib, “Realities of the Orthodox Proposal.”

53. Albert Constanian.

54. Alakbhar, “Hundreds Rally against ‘Orthodox Law.’”

55. Rami Reyes.

56. Jean-Pierre Katrib.

57. Albert Constanian.

58. Ibid.

59. Khalil Gebara.

60. Ibid.

61. Ali Hamdan.

62. Le Monde Diplomatique, “Taef Agreement.”

63. Albert Constanian.

64. Khalil Gebara.

65. Dixon, “Political Skills or Lying and Manipulation?” 736.

66. Ibid.

67. Ali Hamdan.

68. Salamey and Payne, “Parliamentary Consociationalism in Lebanon.”

69. Harris, “Reflections on Lebanon,” 17.

70. Khariche, “Hezbollah backs Proportional Representation for 2013 Polls.”

71. Daily Star, “Proportional Representation Only Option: Hezbollah.”

72. Ali Hamdan.

73. Rami Reyes.

74. Kalyvas, “Ethnic Defection in Civil War,” 1045.

75. el Houri, “On Laic Pride.”

76. Now, “Lebanon Grand Mufti Moves Against Civil Marriage.”

77. Albert Constanian.

78. Ali Hamdan.

79. Michel De Chadarevian.

80. Issam Kayssi (Former President Students Association).

81. Daily Star, “Gemayel Slams Lebanon Mufti.”

82. Melhem Riachi.

83. Khalil Gebara.

84. Ali Hamdan.

85. Albert Constanian.

86. Rami Reyes.

87. Makram Rabat.

88. Tarek Zaidan (Media Director).

89. Farha, “Demographic Dilemmas,” 92.

90. Moaddel, “Ethnicity and Values among the Lebanese Public.”

91. Rosiny, “Power Sharing in Syria.”

92. Kerr, “Before the Revolution.” 30.