Lebanon: From the legacy of “Sykes-Picot” to the necessity of decolonising the interior

Today, the question of the state in Lebanon is raised not merely as a crisis of governance or a systemic malfunction, but as an existential dilemma striking at its foundation and the components of its sovereignty.

In classical political literature – specifically as established by the German sociologist Max Weber, in his famous essay “Politics as a Vocation” – the state is defined as that entity which holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a specified geographical territory.

However, this definition, despite its procedural importance, falls short of describing the modern state in its institutional essence, which is supposed to rest upon three structural pillars:

1. a rational bureaucracy that manages societal affairs through abstract laws immune to personal whims;
2. international recognition that grants it a seat and legitimacy at the United Nations; and
3. a social contract representing the dialectical relationship between authority and citizens, whereby protection and services are bartered for loyalty and fiscal commitment.

The bureaucracy of quotas and the fracture of the social contract

Yet, projecting these pillars onto the Lebanese case reveals a profound structural distortion, manufactured with deliberate intent.

Bureaucracy in Lebanon, though superficially resembling an administrative apparatus, is realistically incapable of managing the affairs of society, stripped as it is of its rational character and entirely subjugated to sectarian quotas, confessional balances, regional divisions, and vested interests. It is a “bureaucracy of self-interest”, established by colonialism to serve its purposes and ensure the state remains beholden to non-national power centres.

As for international recognition, in the Lebanese case it is nothing more than a reflection of the domestic state’s image on the global stage. If the state is inherently subservient to colonial will from its inception, its representation in international forums will merely mirror the interests of those foreign powers under fraudulent sovereign labels.

Regarding the social contract, the subordination of authority to colonial will renders its detachment from the aspirations of its citizens inevitable. Here, the state automatically transforms from a custodian of rights into an instrument of coercion and popular suppression, driving the populace to follow the external dictates of major powers. How can the concept of “civic belonging” hold true in exchange for services and taxation when colonialism grips the vital arteries of this state – economically, socially, financially, and politically?

This structural contradiction explains the state of “identity schizophrenia” that has accompanied Lebanon since its founding, where the individual seeks security within their sect rather than their state.

The wound of the Upper Galilee and the legitimacy of self-defence

The deepest legacy left by the demarcation of borders in the “Sykes-Picot” agreement is the bleeding wound in the Upper Galilee, which represents the pinnacle of social and geographical tragedy.

The colonial partition in that region left a social fracture in the purest sense, exposing its inhabitants to killing, pillage, and continuous aggression ever since the establishment of the occupying entity in Palestine in 1948. Despite their repeated appeals to the state – which is supposedly responsible for their protection – the permanent response was ignorance and neglect, at times even escalating to implicit or actual complicity in targeting the people of Southern Lebanon.

Because “survival follows existence”, the people of the Upper Galilee were forced to assume the responsibility of defending themselves, their land, and their property, in light of this deliberate absence of the state. Meanwhile, the authorities practiced the ugliest forms of sectarianism, referencing them as “Metwalis” and other derogatory terms to justify their neglect, while the sectarian representatives in power – appointed by colonialism – plotted the schemes that brought the country to its current state of dependency and collapse.

The politicisation of resistance and the trap of consociationalism

At that time, Lebanon was not split along sectarian lines with the intensity we witness today. Resisters from various sects participated in confronting the occupation, driven by a popular and national authenticity that had not yet been completely corrupted.

This was also due to the presence of regional powers that formed a certain balance against the colonial project. However, through a combination of the decline of anti-colonial regimes, society’s preoccupation with engineered economic crises, and diligent efforts to dismantle national bonds and replace them with wars and strife, the matter culminated in the resistance being confined entirely to the Shia component as a translation of this complex reality.

Although many resisters might argue they were preoccupied with existential defence against the colonial entity to the south, this defence occasionally caused them to overlook the other dimension of the colonial war being waged against them “from behind”, via the formation of an authority working to isolate and eliminate them politically. Indeed, it can be argued that engagement in the sectarian quota system and so-called “consociational democracy” facilitated internal colonial action.

This system solidifies policies dictated from abroad and entrenches the authority of sectarian leaders as agents of major interests, ultimately serving as a counter-veto against any genuine national sovereignty.

The Strait of Hormuz and the fall of petrodollar hegemony

This structural failure leads us to the necessity of linking the local crisis to the major shifts in the international balance of power.

The functional Lebanese state derives its false stability from the dominance of the “imperial system” built upon the power of the petrodollar. From here emerges the strategic blow delivered by the Axis of Resistance today as a catalyst for radical change.

For example, Iran’s ability to impose new equations in the Strait of Hormuz (coupled with the capabilities of resistance forces in other theatres) represents not merely control over a waterway, but a process of deliberate economic strangulation of the arteries feeding imperial power.

The direct threat to energy flows and control over global trade routes strikes at the very heart of the illusionary “finance-based economy” underpinning the dollar. This weakens the instruments used by colonialism to bring nations to their knees through sanctions, blockades, and the funding of both hard and soft wars.

This geopolitical shift opens a historical window for the Lebanese people to decolonise the interior; for as much as the resistance forces succeed in diminishing colonial influence regionally and internationally, the capacity of their local proxies to obstruct the building of a sovereign state diminishes alongside it.

Towards citizenship and the reclamation of comprehensive sovereignty

The decolonisation of the interior is a national duty equal in importance to fighting direct occupation. This is achieved by radically reversing the effects of “Sykes-Picot“: exploiting the current situation and its outcomes to overturn the Lebanese system from one of quotas to a system of citizenship, where allegiance to the state is absolute and direct.

The reclamation of political, financial, economic, and social sovereignty passes inevitably through the struggle to implement the 1989 Taif Agreement, which stipulates the abolition of political sectarianism under Clause C of the political reforms section, and mandates the enactment of an electoral law based on the governorate/single constituency under Clause A of the parliament section.

Furthermore, it may be possible to introduce other amendments to the Taif Agreement once true popular representation is achieved, provided that these modifications serve sovereignty and independence from all forms of colonial dependency, particularly its financial and economic aspects. In this way, the Lebanese voter is liberated from the authority of religious and political feudalism, and the true aspirations of the people to build a state of institutions free from foreign dictation are realised.

The confrontation today is a conflict between “subservient realism” and “sovereign will”. It is a battle that demands a consciousness transcending the borders drawn by the coloniser, allowing us to draw our own borders through our awareness and capacity for historical action, drawing strength from major global shifts that shatter the shackles of unipolarity and herald the era of free nations.

Featured image via the Canary

By Mohammad Fakih

Source link