Why political clientelism makes accountability difficult in Lebanon

Lebanon has laws in place to punish public employees who break the rules. But are these laws actually being enforced, and do employees who commit violations face any real consequences?

At the center of this issue is the Higher Disciplinary Council, a body responsible for examining disciplinary cases involving public employees and imposing sanctions when violations are established.

However, having laws and institutions in place does not necessarily mean that accountability is being achieved. Political interference, lengthy administrative procedures, weak oversight and a lack of transparency can all prevent violations from being properly addressed.

For lawyer and political analyst Amine Mohamad Bachir, the problem goes beyond the disciplinary system itself. It is rooted in the way accountability is understood and applied across Lebanon’s public administration.

The main problem in Lebanon lies in the absence of a culture of accountability within public administration, despite the existence of laws and disciplinary regulations that are supposed to provide a clear framework for holding public employees accountable for violations

His remarks raise an important question: If the laws already exist, what is preventing them from being enforced?

Why are public employees not being held accountable?

According to Bachir, several obstacles stand in the way of holding public employees responsible for misconduct.

Political clientelism, weak administrative oversight and a lack of transparency are among the main problems. Political interference can also prevent certain violations from reaching the authorities responsible for investigating them.

Bachir stressed that Lebanon does not necessarily need more laws to address these problems. Instead, existing laws must be enforced consistently, regardless of the employee involved.

“The problem is not so much the absence of laws, but rather their failure to be applied equally and consistently,” he said.

This means that “accountability should not depend on an employee’s political affiliation, influence, or the protection they enjoy,” Bachir added.

His comments highlight the importance of ensuring that the same rules apply to all public employees, without exceptions based on political backing or personal relationships.

For accountability to function properly, violations must be referred to the appropriate authorities, investigated and addressed through the procedures established by law.

However, Bachir pointed out that political protection and administrative weaknesses can interfere with this process before a disciplinary decision is even reached.

How political interference and delays weaken accountability

Political interference is one of the main challenges facing disciplinary accountability in Lebanon, according to the lawyer.

“Political interference may take the form of influencing the referral and investigation of disciplinary cases, exerting pressure on the relevant administrative authorities, or providing protection to certain employees who enjoy political backing,” he explained.

Such interference can affect whether a violation is properly examined and whether the employee involved is ultimately held responsible.

But political pressure is not the only obstacle.

Administrative delays and lengthy procedures can also weaken the disciplinary system, particularly when cases take years to reach a conclusion.

Bachir warned that disciplinary sanctions lose much of their purpose when they are imposed long after the original violation.

“A punishment imposed years after a violation loses much of its deterrent effect,” he said, adding that these delays also undermine citizens’ trust in state institutions. For a disciplinary system to be effective, decisions must be reached within a reasonable period. Otherwise, the consequences of misconduct may come too late to serve as a meaningful deterrent.

However, Bachir emphasized that speeding up disciplinary proceedings should not come at the expense of employees’ legal rights.

He stressed the need to distinguish between legitimate legal procedures and unnecessary delays.

“It is important to distinguish between respecting legal safeguards and an employee’s right to defend themselves, which is essential, and unjustified delays or obstruction that prevent justice from being achieved,” he explained.

What needs to change for the Council to become more effective?

Despite the challenges, Bachir considers the Higher Disciplinary Council an essential part of Lebanon’s public administration.

“I believe that the Higher Disciplinary Council is an essential institution within the system of oversight and accountability in public administration,” he said.

However, he explained that the Council’s effectiveness depends on its independence and the wider political and administrative environment in which it operates.

No disciplinary body can be expected to achieve effective results unless it has the independence, resources, powers, and legal safeguards necessary to carry out its role free from political and administrative pressure

He identified three main changes needed to strengthen disciplinary accountability.

The first is reinforcing the Council’s independence and protecting it from political interference. This would allow it to carry out its responsibilities without pressure from political or administrative actors.

The second is accelerating disciplinary proceedings while maintaining employees’ right to defend themselves and the guarantees of a fair trial.

The third is ensuring that disciplinary decisions and sanctions are actually implemented, without selective enforcement or exceptions.

For Bachir, issuing disciplinary decisions is not enough if those decisions are not properly enforced. Accountability requires both a functioning disciplinary process and the effective implementation of its outcomes. These measures, he argued, are necessary to ensure that violations are addressed fairly and that public employees understand they can be held responsible for misconduct.

Ultimately, Bachir believes that accountability must begin with a clear understanding of what it means to hold a public position.

“Public office is not a privilege that protects its holder, but a responsibility toward the state and its citizens,” he said.

He concluded with a message about the importance of applying the law equally to everyone:

No public employee should feel that they are above the law because of their position, political affiliation, or personal connections