The Paradox of Consociational Democracy*

2.1.2.2 (What’s this number?)

This is an extract from Itamar Rabinovich’s book The War for Lebanon. I find that it gives a fresh perspective on the political system in Lebanon. Although the book was written in 1984, the content of this extract still applies to today’s political situation as little has changed in the Lebanese constitution since the Independence in 1943.

“…(The Lebanese political system) had important merits, not least of which was that it was based on an awareness of the fundamental conflict in Lebanon and attempted to come to grips with it. In this respect, Lebanon was significantly different from Syria and Iraq, whose political systems were ostensibly built on the assumption that communal differences had given way to an allegiance to Arabism. Furthermore, the Lebanese political system contained mechanisms designed to blunt intercommunal rivalries and to require intercommunal cooperation. The historical roots of the system and its gradual evolution gave it significant advantages over possible alternatives. And whatever the system’s obvious deficiencies, it did not seem that any other could preserve the Lebanese state as a pluralistic polity. Furthermore, it was the only genuine parliamentary system that survived and functioned in the post-World War II Arab world.”

Approximate concentration areas of major communities

*Consociational Democracy: A political system common in states which have major internal divisions along ethnic, religious or linguistic lines, with none of the divisions large enough to form a majority group, yet nonetheless manage to remain stable, due to consultation among the elites of each of their major social groups. Consociational states are often contrasted with states with majority rule. Classical examples of consociational states are Belgium, Switzerland, Lebanon and the Netherlands.