From coexistence to division

For more than a century, “consensual coexistence” has been presented in Lebanon as the foundational principle of the state. It has gradually become a near-sacred political doctrine, rarely questioned, often defended as indispensable. Yet Lebanon’s lived experience repeatedly raises a difficult question: has this model truly ensured stability, or has it instead become part of the problem it was meant to solve?

Lebanon did not emerge from a unified national movement, a shared revolution, or a collective project of nation-building. It was instead constructed as an entity bringing together diverse religious and sectarian communities, each with its own historical narrative, fears, and political expectations. From the outset, the country has functioned less as a cohesive nation-state and more as a delicate arrangement of competing identities held together by fragile balances.

This structure has produced a persistent sense of existential insecurity among Lebanon’s communities. At various moments, each group has perceived itself as vulnerable, threatened, or at risk of marginalization. As a result, seeking external protection, whether regional or international, became a recurring political behavior rather than an exception. This was not simply the product of political manipulation, but rather the outcome of a deeper absence of mutual trust and of a shared sense of belonging to a single political community.

More critically, the Lebanese state itself has never fully succeeded in becoming a unifying national authority. In practice, it has often been perceived not as the expression of a single people, but as a negotiating platform between rival communities. Yet a state is not meant to function as a mediator among factions; it is supposed to stand above them and govern in the name of a common political identity. When the state is reduced to an arbitrator between sects, it reveals that a true national consensus has never fully taken shape.

Over the decades, Lebanon’s divisions have not softened, they have deepened and solidified. Collective memory remains marked by episodes of conflict, fear, and mutual suspicion. These memories cannot simply be erased through slogans or appeals to national unity. They must instead be acknowledged as part of the political reality that any sustainable system must confront.

This reality suggests the need to seriously reconsider the current model, which has exhausted the country and contributed to repeated crises and systemic collapse. What may be required is a political framework that recognizes existing differences rather than denying them, while granting communities a degree of autonomy in managing their local social and cultural affairs, within a single state that retains exclusive authority over defense, foreign policy, and macroeconomic governance.

The objective is not the dismantling of the state, but its reconstruction on more realistic and stable foundations. A state that is neutral in relation to regional conflicts and alliances, focused instead on development, governance, and the dignity of its citizens. A state that manages diversity rather than being imprisoned by it, transforming difference from a source of conflict into a framework for stability.

It is also important to acknowledge that sectarian identity in Lebanon is not a temporary or superficial phenomenon, but a structural feature of its social and political order. At the same time, conventional forms of secularism based on simple majority rule often fail to reassure communities that fear political domination or existential marginalization. The real challenge, therefore, is not to deny sectarian realities, but to design a political system capable of containing them without allowing any group to monopolize power.

Persisting in repeating formulas that historical experience has already tested and found insufficient will only deepen instability. The real political courage lies in rethinking the Lebanese model itself and imagining a framework better suited to ensure stability, dignity, and long-term viability. States are not built on aspirations alone, but on a clear-eyed understanding of the societies they govern. If this debate is postponed further, Lebanon may soon face even deeper crises, at which point meaningful reform could become nearly impossible.