The search for a Shiite alternative: Between state Absence and Hezbollah’s dominance

Many are asking why no Shiite alternative has emerged to challenge the political dominance of Hezbollah and Amal Movement, and what has prevented the rise of a coherent political organization that could clearly represent dissenting voices within the Shiite community. These questions have grown louder amid increasing discontent with Hezbollah’s policies and choices, especially following the recent war, which undermined the party’s long-standing narrative of “deterrence” and “protection of the South.”

At first glance, this question seems legitimate. Lebanon’s sovereign and reformist forces have long sought a Shiite partner willing to cooperate in advancing the national interest and reaffirming the primacy of the state. Yet, the emergence of a viable Shiite political movement with substantial popular support one capable of competing with Hezbollah for influence within the community remains constrained by several fundamental conditions that are still unmet.

Foremost among these conditions is the effective presence of the state in predominantly Shiite areas. The mere existence of security, military, and judicial institutions there is not enough. In practice, their authority often extends only to ordinary citizens, while Hezbollah operates largely beyond the reach of state accountability or, at times, these institutions function in coordination with the party’s own apparatus and within the limits it sets.

What is required, therefore, is for the state to exercise its authority fully and impartially, asserting its supremacy over all actors without exception. Hezbollah, like every other political or social entity, must be subject to the rule of law, not stand above it as a parallel power dictating the boundaries of state sovereignty.

Today, the Shiite majority regions remain under Hezbollah’s full security control. State institutions of all kinds are compelled to coordinate with the party’s networks before carrying out any operation within these areas. This reality makes it nearly impossible for any independent or oppositional Shiite political movement to emerge or operate freely.

The formation of a genuine Shiite opposition movement requires a healthy political environment governed by the rule of law and genuine equality among citizens an environment where individuals can engage in political work freely and safely, without fear for their lives or livelihoods.

It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Lebanese state and its institutions to provide a secure and enabling space for political diversity within the Shiite community one that guarantees freedom of choice and affiliation and shields citizens from intimidation or persecution based on their political views. What Lebanon needs is a sovereign state that enforces its authority through its judicial, security, and military institutions not a state subservient to Hezbollah’s will or influence. 

Ultimately, the return of the Shiites to the state requires that the state itself first be liberated from Hezbollah’s dominance. Only by restoring its authority and imposing the rule of law equally across all Lebanese territory especially in Shiite areas can the state reclaim its legitimacy. There can be no credible Shiite alternative as long as Hezbollah remains the de facto power overriding the institutions of the Lebanese Republic.