The state is not the system, yet both have failed Lebanon

For decades, we Lebanese have denounced “the State.” We blame it for corruption, paralysis, poverty, and humiliation. The State has failed us, and we are right. But in our anger, we often confuse two fundamentally different realities: the State and the political system. They are not one and the same. Though both have failed, they have not failed for the same reasons.

The State is, in principle, a simple thing. It is the sovereign authority that alone should possess the monopoly over arms, foreign policy, public finances, and national resources. It is the authority that should speak in the name of all Lebanese and protect the interests of the nation as a whole. The political system, however, is something entirely different. It is merely the way power is organized and exercised within that State. Systems can change, constitutions can evolve, institutions can be reformed. States, however, are meant to endure. State is the standard. 

Unfortunately, Lebanon suffers from the failure of both. We do not possess a fully sovereign State capable of exercising authority over all its territory and decisions. Nor do we possess a political system capable of transforming our diversity into a source of stability. For more than a century, we have tried to convince ourselves that slogans could replace realities. We spoke endlessly of coexistence and national unity, but we rarely dared to ask ourselves whether our institutions were truly adapted to the nature of Lebanese society.

Perhaps it is time to admit something that many refuse to acknowledge. The Lebanese do not all share the same political vision, the same collective memory, the same cultural references, or even the same understanding of Lebanon’s place in the world. More than a hundred years of crises, wars, and foreign interventions have only deepened these differences. There is nothing shameful in recognizing this reality. The shame lies in pretending that it does not exist and then acting surprised when reality catches up with us.

Every community in Lebanon has, at one point or another, lived with the fear of disappearance. Every community has feared domination by another. And almost every community has, at one moment in its history, sought protection from abroad. This permanent recourse to foreign powers is not simply the cause of the weakness of the State; it is also its consequence. For how can a State be strong when its own components trust external actors more than they trust one another?

That is why the solution cannot simply consist in preserving the current system, nor can it consist in abandoning the idea of Lebanon itself. What Lebanon needs, first and foremost, is a State worthy of the name. A State that alone possesses arms. A State that alone conducts diplomacy. A State that alone manages national resources and public finances. In other words, a State that belongs to everyone precisely because it belongs to no one in particular.

Only then should we finally have the courage to discuss what has become unavoidable: the question of a new political system. A system that recognizes the realities of Lebanese society instead of denying them. A system built not upon the illusion that all Lebanese think alike, but upon the certainty that they do not, and that peace is built not by erasing differences, but by organizing coexistence.

For decades, many have rejected federalism because they confuse it with partition. Yet partition is the separation of a people. Federalism, on the contrary, seeks to unite different societies under one sovereign State while allowing each of them to preserve its own way of life, cultural particularities, and local affairs. In truth, the Lebanese are already divided; not by borders or walls, but by memories, fears, and competing visions of their country. The purpose of a new system would not be to divide them further, but to allow them to live together peacefully without constantly fearing one another.

Switzerland understood long ago that unity does not require uniformity. People who do not share the same language, traditions, or historical memories can nevertheless share the same State. What matters is not that everyone be identical, but that everyone recognize the legitimacy of a common authority standing above all particular interests.

Perhaps that is what Lebanon has lacked since its very birth. Not necessarily a common identity, nor a common memory, but a common faith in the State itself. For the State is not the system. And if both have failed, perhaps it is because we have spent more than a century trying to force unity upon realities that demanded understanding rather than denial. Reality, sooner or later, always prevails.