Electing a Lebanese president without the consent of the Christians and Shia is expected to lead to conflict. The simple majority quorum defies and overrides the principle of consensus inherent in Lebanon?s constitution and consociational democracy. Our predictions are based on our deep understanding of the history of Lebanon and its people, as well as our seasoned experience in dealing with Lebanese policy. The role of our policymakers should be to seek pathways to peace and stability in divided nations and not to exacerbate divisions and tensions by recommending short-sighted policies. The interests of the United States would be best served in the region when the people of Lebanon are encouraged to engage each other in dialogue and work together to reach consensus on issues that divide them.


- Source: tayyar.org

These factors have led in Lebanon?s recent history to increasing the socio-economic and ideological cleavages amongst Lebanon?s diverse communities, and have also dragged the country into a protracted conflict that has moved from being an armed one to a political one.

Our Recommendation for Successful Policy:

As Lebanon struggles to elect a new president, we hear US officials and policy-makers encouraging the use of the simple majority quorum in parliament for this election. We find that these recommendations will have catastrophic consequences on Lebanon?s already precarious internal peace and stability. The so-called majority in the Lebanese government excludes two large segments of the Lebanese population ? the majority of Christians and the majority of Shia.

Why Consociational Democracy?

When Lebanon was established as a modern state in the 1920s, it united over its territory a highly heterogeneous and pluralistic society - at times divided by socio-economic and ideological cleavages. This country that was for decades a refuge for persecuted minorities in the Middle East sought out at its birth a model for governance that would preserve the rights of each of these minority groups.

Consociational or consensual democracy was adopted, but was misapplied by successive governments. We find that the consociational or consensual model itself is not the problem because it has functioned well in other nations. Instead, we find that the way that Lebanon?s polity applied this model resulted in its failure since this country?s inception. Lebanon?s ruling elites have over the years either ignored the required element of ?consensus? underlying this form of government or ended up marginalizing a group that should have been more fairly included in governing the country.